Something I've Been Wondering About: Are Roma & Romani URM? Forum

[sunrunner]

I would have to assume so. They certainly rate very high on the list of the most disadvantaged/oppressed minority groups in the Western World. To this day, they are still being expelled from various countries under terrible circumstances. A group of impoverished Roma were kicked out of Ireland just recently. A group was persecuted and driven out of Spokane, WA 20 years ago.

So, would they receive URM status? I would hope so.

Not a flame. Just a question.

[Zapatero]

No.

[BenJ]

No. There are too few in the US to be taken into account. However, write a good diversity statement and your Roma heritage will probably get you a lot of recognition anyway.

[newyorker88]

I would have to assume so. They certainly rate very high on the list of the most disadvantaged/oppressed minority groups in the Western World. To this day, they are still being expelled from various countries under terrible circumstances. A group of impoverished Roma were kicked out of Ireland just recently. A group was persecuted and driven out of Spokane, WA 20 years ago.

So, would they receive URM status? I would hope so.

Not a flame. Just a question.

Nope. Based on their US population they are not underrepresented in law school. URMs are African Americans, Native Americans, Mexicans, and Puerto Ricans.

[BigFatPanda]

Roma are still too white to be URM. However, you could claim refugee status. I think there is a comparative LSAT passage that refers to this unique group.

[Kiersten1985]

Nope. Based on their US population they are not underrepresented in law school. URMs are African Americans, Native Americans, Mexicans, and Puerto Ricans ONLY.

Fixed.

[jks289]

Maybe not URM under the TLS perceived magical URM status (take all URM advice here with a grain of salt, so much is flat out wrong on here) but certainly the basis for a compelling diversity statement.

[sunrunner]

Roma are still too white to be URM. However, you could claim refugee status. I think there is a comparative LSAT passage that refers to this unique group.

I'm not Roma. Just curious. Thought it was an interesting question.

[vanwinkle]

Maybe not URM under the TLS perceived magical URM status (take all URM advice here with a grain of salt, so much is flat out wrong on here) but certainly the basis for a compelling diversity statement.

URM is a clearly defined legal distinction, not just a label. You can look at Grutter v. Bollinger and see how that court approved the use of non-quota-based admissions measures to increase the enrollment of specially targeted groups that would continue to be under-represented without those measures in place. Schools follow that narrowly tailored decision and focus on the same groups that were targeted in that admissions program (African-American, Mexican-American, Puerto Rican, and Native American) because they know that, tailored that narrowly to increase enrollment of those specific groups, it is constitutional.

URM is not some magical status, it's something arrived at from lawsuits and court decisions and it is fairly clearly defined. The only point of contention is whether non-MX/PR Hispanics are considered URMs; the Bollinger case itself is fairly unclear on this, since it mostly discusses Hispanics in general but then in one part mentions Mexican-Americans and Puerto Ricans as the groups that would be under-represented without some type of affirmative action. With regard to Roma and all other racial categories than the ones named, though, the correct answer is simply "No, they are not URM."

It would possibly make for a good Diversity Statement, but they are not URM.

[jks289]

Maybe not URM under the TLS perceived magical URM status (take all URM advice here with a grain of salt, so much is flat out wrong on here) but certainly the basis for a compelling diversity statement.

URM is a clearly defined legal distinction, not just a label. You can look at Grutter v. Bollinger and see how that court approved the use of non-quota-based admissions measures to increase the enrollment of specially targeted groups that would continue to be under-represented without those measures in place. Schools follow that narrowly tailored decision and focus on the same groups that were targeted in that admissions program (African-American, Mexican-American, Puerto Rican, and Native American) because they know that, tailored that narrowly to increase enrollment of those specific groups, it is constitutional.

URM is not some magical status, it's something arrived at from lawsuits and court decisions and it is fairly clearly defined. The only point of contention is whether non-MX/PR Hispanics are considered URMs; the Bollinger case itself is fairly unclear on this, since it mostly discusses Hispanics in general but then in one part mentions Mexican-Americans and Puerto Ricans as the groups that would be under-represented without some type of affirmative action. With regard to Roma and all other racial categories than the ones named, though, the correct answer is simply "No, they are not URM."

It would possibly make for a good Diversity Statement, but they are not URM.

I am not saying URM status doesn't exist, or that certain ethnicities aren't more “valuable” than others. Just that I find it hard to believe there are no shades of gray. That either you are black and therefore get x number of points, or you are white/Asian/whatever and get nothing. People on this website speak with lots of authority on something they cannot possibly know about, because school do not disclose precisely how they go about making these distinctions. I've seen everything from charming references to the "one drop" rule of African blood as being enough to qualify, to people claiming that being from Mexico counts but El Salvador doesn't. I'll give law schools the benefit of the doubt that they are genuinely interesting in building an ethnically, culturally, and economically diverse class and not trying to fill arbitrary quotas for reporting purposes. Assuming that is the case, I just don't see how the simplistic yes/no reasoning on this site could possibly be valid.

ETA Grutter v. Bollinger lays out pertinent examples of what would be legally protected considerations but doesn't dictate the ways in which schools are allowed to decide and as far as I know at no point limits AA consideration to particular ethnicities only.

[vanwinkle]

I am not saying URM status doesn't exist, or that certain ethnicities aren't more “valuable” than others. Just that I find it hard to believe there are no shades of gray. That either you are black and therefore get x number of points, or you are white/Asian/whatever and get nothing. People on this website speak with lots of authority on something they cannot possibly know about, because school do not disclose precisely how they go about making these distinctions. I've seen everything from charming references to the "one drop" rule of African blood as being enough to qualify, to people claiming that being from Mexico counts but El Salvador doesn't. I'll give law schools the benefit of the doubt that they are genuinely interesting in building an ethnically, culturally, and economically diverse class and not trying to fill arbitrary quotas for reporting purposes. Assuming that is the case, I just don't see how the simplistic yes/no reasoning on this site could possibly be valid.

ETA Grutter v. Bollinger lays out pertinent examples of what would be legally protected considerations but doesn't dictate the ways in which schools are allowed to decide and as far as I know at no point limits AA consideration to particular ethnicities only.

You're still not understanding the difference. Race-targeted admissions policies are limited to a very narrow scope thanks to decisions like Bollinger; the court makes clear that a broader application would likely be found unconstitutional, and finds UM's policies constitutional because of their narrow interest in increasing enrollment of four very distinct and specific named ethnic groups that are under-represented.

Other schools have a clear incentive to not go beyond the Bollinger boundaries because 1) they know that those boundaries are constitutional and 2) they know that at some point beyond them it stops being constitutional, so by following them they can adhere to the law and avoid charges of discrimination. So as a result that case does result in limiting schools' consideration for AA purposes to those specific minority groups. Schools can also evaluate other minority applicants on a case-by-case basis, reading Diversity Statements to determine if the applicant would increase the diversity of the school, but they do not apply AA-type measures to those applicants to try to increase representation of those races as a whole.

The "simplistic" yes/no reasoning happens because people are asking "Is X a URM?" which has a clearly definable yes/no answer. You're confusing this with a separate question, "Is being X and having a disadvantaged background worth consideration to law schools?" which has a far less clear and easily definable answer. These are two entirely different questions, and your problem is that you cannot separate the two. OP's disadvantaged background may earn him special consideration by schools if he writes a Diversity Statement, as you suggested, but this does not make him/her a URM.

[sunrunner]

I am not saying URM status doesn't exist, or that certain ethnicities aren't more “valuable” than others. Just that I find it hard to believe there are no shades of gray. That either you are black and therefore get x number of points, or you are white/Asian/whatever and get nothing. People on this website speak with lots of authority on something they cannot possibly know about, because school do not disclose precisely how they go about making these distinctions. I've seen everything from charming references to the "one drop" rule of African blood as being enough to qualify, to people claiming that being from Mexico counts but El Salvador doesn't. I'll give law schools the benefit of the doubt that they are genuinely interesting in building an ethnically, culturally, and economically diverse class and not trying to fill arbitrary quotas for reporting purposes. Assuming that is the case, I just don't see how the simplistic yes/no reasoning on this site could possibly be valid.

ETA Grutter v. Bollinger lays out pertinent examples of what would be legally protected considerations but doesn't dictate the ways in which schools are allowed to decide and as far as I know at no point limits AA consideration to particular ethnicities only.

You're still not understanding the difference. Race-targeted admissions policies are limited to a very narrow scope thanks to decisions like Bollinger; the court makes clear that a broader application would likely be found unconstitutional, and finds UM's policies constitutional because of their narrow interest in increasing enrollment of four very distinct and specific named ethnic groups that are under-represented.

Other schools have a clear incentive to not go beyond the Bollinger boundaries because 1) they know that those boundaries are constitutional and 2) they know that at some point beyond them it stops being constitutional, so by following them they can adhere to the law and avoid charges of discrimination. So as a result that case does result in limiting schools' consideration for AA purposes to those specific minority groups. Schools can also evaluate other minority applicants on a case-by-case basis, reading Diversity Statements to determine if the applicant would increase the diversity of the school, but they do not apply AA-type measures to those applicants to try to increase representation of those races as a whole.

The "simplistic" yes/no reasoning happens because people are asking "Is X a URM?" which has a clearly definable yes/no answer. You're confusing this with a separate question, "Is being X and having a disadvantaged background worth consideration to law schools?" These are not the same question, and your problem is that you cannot separate the two. OP's disadvantaged background may earn him special consideration by schools if he writes a Diversity Statement, as you suggested, but this does not make him/her a URM.

I'm not Roma. I was just wondering how they are evaluated. I thought that they might be URM, but wasn't sure. My guess was that they would be. Routinely oppressed/persecuted minorities would seem to be ideal candidates for a boost. It has to be hard to excel academically when your family lives in fear of being harrassed and forced out of a community.

Vanwinkle, I think jks understands the distinction, but she may not be sure that such a cut and dry application of the ruling is so standard.

[vanwinkle]

I'm not Roma. I was just wondering how they are evaluated. I thought that they might be URM, but wasn't sure. My guess was that they would be. Routinely oppressed/persecuted minorities would seem to be ideal candidates for a boost. It has to be hard to excel academically when your family lives in fear of being harrassed and forced out of a community.

The thing is that being oppressed or persecuted does not make you under-represented in American secondary education, especially when that oppression/persecution occurred elsewhere. There are simply not that many Roma in the United States, so calling them "under-represented" here makes no sense; who are they supposed to be representing? There are maybe 5-11 million Roma in the entire world, most of them in Europe or the Middle East; there are 37 million African-Americans in the United States, in contrast. There is concern about African-Americans because they are "under-represented" in education compared to the population as a whole; Roma don't receive this concern because while there are not that many Roma in American secondary education, there aren't that many Roma in the U.S. as a whole either.

They are ideal candidates to receive some kind of boost or additional consideration due to the diversity they can bring to a school, I do agree with that. However, if they do receive such a boost, it is not due to being a URM.

[jks289]

I am not saying URM status doesn't exist, or that certain ethnicities aren't more “valuable” than others. Just that I find it hard to believe there are no shades of gray. That either you are black and therefore get x number of points, or you are white/Asian/whatever and get nothing. People on this website speak with lots of authority on something they cannot possibly know about, because school do not disclose precisely how they go about making these distinctions. I've seen everything from charming references to the "one drop" rule of African blood as being enough to qualify, to people claiming that being from Mexico counts but El Salvador doesn't. I'll give law schools the benefit of the doubt that they are genuinely interesting in building an ethnically, culturally, and economically diverse class and not trying to fill arbitrary quotas for reporting purposes. Assuming that is the case, I just don't see how the simplistic yes/no reasoning on this site could possibly be valid.

ETA Grutter v. Bollinger lays out pertinent examples of what would be legally protected considerations but doesn't dictate the ways in which schools are allowed to decide and as far as I know at no point limits AA consideration to particular ethnicities only.

You're still not understanding the difference. Race-targeted admissions policies are limited to a very narrow scope thanks to decisions like Bollinger; the court makes clear that a broader application would likely be found unconstitutional, and finds UM's policies constitutional because of their narrow interest in increasing enrollment of four very distinct and specific named ethnic groups that are under-represented.

Other schools have a clear incentive to not go beyond the Bollinger boundaries because 1) they know that those boundaries are constitutional and 2) they know that at some point beyond them it stops being constitutional, so by following them they can adhere to the law and avoid charges of discrimination. So as a result that case does result in limiting schools' consideration for AA purposes to those specific minority groups. Schools can also evaluate other minority applicants on a case-by-case basis, reading Diversity Statements to determine if the applicant would increase the diversity of the school, but they do not apply AA-type measures to those applicants to try to increase representation of those races as a whole.

The "simplistic" yes/no reasoning happens because people are asking "Is X a URM?" which has a clearly definable yes/no answer. You're confusing this with a separate question, "Is being X and having a disadvantaged background worth consideration to law schools?" which has a far less clear and easily definable answer. These are two entirely different questions, and your problem is that you cannot separate the two. OP's disadvantaged background may earn him special consideration by schools if he writes a Diversity Statement, as you suggested, but this does not make him/her a URM.

You aren't correctly reading my initial statement, which was that while Roma isn't URM it is worth a diversity essay, or anything that follows. I then made a related statement about there being bad URM advice on this website, but at no point asserted Roma were URM, or that there isn't a difference between URM status and general ethnic considerations. You responded to that post assuming that I had meant URM somehow didn't exist. I once again acknowledged that there was indeed certain ethnicities specially protected by Bollinger, and went on to say I still believe Roma and similar non-URM minorities could be given consideration under the theory that holistic admission and AA can extend somewhat outside the defined boundaries. What distinction am I not understanding? I clearly said I understood the difference between URM and general diversity considerations.

[orphanarium]

...

[sunrunner]

I'm not Roma. I was just wondering how they are evaluated. I thought that they might be URM, but wasn't sure. My guess was that they would be. Routinely oppressed/persecuted minorities would seem to be ideal candidates for a boost. It has to be hard to excel academically when your family lives in fear of being harrassed and forced out of a community.

The thing is that being oppressed or persecuted does not make you under-represented in American secondary education, especially when that oppression/persecution occurred elsewhere. There are simply not that many Roma in the United States, so calling them "under-represented" here makes no sense; who are they supposed to be representing?

They are ideal candidates to receive some kind of boost or additional consideration due to the diversity they can bring to a school, I do agree with that. However, if they do receive such a boost, it is not due to being a URM.

Actually, there was a group of Roma who were very clearly persecuted by the Spokane PD in the late '80's. That is the only major incident I am aware of, but I haven't really looked into it.

I suppose it would be hard to know whether or not they are underrepresented, as their numbers in the US would probably be difficult to measure with accuracy.

I see what you are saying.

[vanwinkle]

You aren't correctly reading my initial statement, which was that while Roma isn't URM it is worth a diversity essay, or anything that follows. I then made a related statement about there being bad URM advice on this website, but at no point asserted Roma were URM, or that there isn't a difference between URM status and general ethnic considerations. You responded to that post assuming that I had meant URM somehow didn't exist. I once again acknowledged that there was indeed certain ethnicities specially protected by Bollinger, and went on to say I still believe Roma and similar non-URM minorities could be given consideration under the theory that holistic admission and AA can extend somewhat outside the defined boundaries. What distinction am I not understanding? I clearly said I understood the difference between URM and general diversity considerations.

You mean your initial statement where you referred to a "URM under the TLS perceived magical URM status" (your words)?

At no point did you assert that Roma were URM, but you did go on about how you felt things were not at all cut and dry, which when it comes to whether someone is a URM, it pretty much is. You also complained about the "yes/no" reasoning on this site, although when it comes to whether someone is URM or not, there is a fairly clear "yes" or "no" that can be applied.

I can see how it may have just been your responses and not your actual understanding of URM status that was unclear. You were a lot clearer with this reply that you do seem to understand where things are with regard to URM, AA, and diversity admissions.

[vanwinkle]

Bollinger applies to public schools. It does not apply to private schools. At the time, U Mich considered African Americans, Native Americans, Mexicans and Puerto Ricans as URM. This does not mean that these are the only groups that get URM status at every school ... something that is pretty obvious to me because a lot of schools don't ask you to list what specific ethnic group you come from within the "Latino/Hispanic" umbrella. In contrast, a handful of schools will ask what specific Asian ethnic group you come from. And some even just give you a blank line and ask you to write down what social groups you identify yourself with for purposes of diversity. I get that this could lead to diversity points rather than URM status, but it could also suggest that those schools understand that some ethnic groups within these populations are not actually underrepresented (i.e. East Asians & South Asians) while others are (Southeast Asians & Pacific Islanders). I don't think its too far-fetched to imagine a school giving students URM status to certain non-Black/Mexican/Puerto Rican/Native American populations.

This is a fair point, and a good one, for the most part. It's correct that this doesn't apply to private schools, and many do seem to evaluate minority admissions differently to some extent. Also, I don't meant to say at all that schools don't evaluate diversity outside of URM status, only that such considerations are handled differently.

However, the issue with Bollinger and which groups are being recognized there is still important because schools know for certain that they can target those minorities with race-based admissions programs, but they do not know how much they can expand beyond that without crossing some arbitrary line. Since Bollinger was not clear whether all Hispanics or just Mexicans and Puerto Ricans were acceptable for targeting, some schools may target the former and some may target the latter, with both thinking they're staying within the bounds of Bollinger as closely as possible. For the most part, though, it's accepted that many schools follow Bollinger as guidance and that leads to narrow targeting of those groups that the case actually cited as appropriate to target. Admissions data seen over the past few cycles on TLS and other websites bears this out.

[jks289]

You aren't correctly reading my initial statement, which was that while Roma isn't URM it is worth a diversity essay, or anything that follows. I then made a related statement about there being bad URM advice on this website, but at no point asserted Roma were URM, or that there isn't a difference between URM status and general ethnic considerations. You responded to that post assuming that I had meant URM somehow didn't exist. I once again acknowledged that there was indeed certain ethnicities specially protected by Bollinger, and went on to say I still believe Roma and similar non-URM minorities could be given consideration under the theory that holistic admission and AA can extend somewhat outside the defined boundaries. What distinction am I not understanding? I clearly said I understood the difference between URM and general diversity considerations.

You mean your initial statement where you referred to a "URM under the TLS perceived magical URM status" (your words)?

At no point did you assert that Roma were URM, but you did go on about how you felt things were not at all cut and dry, which when it comes to whether someone is a URM, it pretty much is. You also complained about the "yes/no" reasoning on this site, although when it comes to whether someone is URM or not, there is a fairly clear "yes" or "no" that can be applied.

I can see how it may have just been your responses and not your actual understanding of URM status that was unclear. You were a lot clearer with this reply that you do seem to understand where things are with regard to URM, AA, and diversity admissions.

My use of "TLS percieved magical URM status" was in reference to the bad advice on these boards in telling people that their ethnicity doesn't matter at all if it falls outside certain defined groups. After making the distinction about Roma not being defined as URM I went on to a larger discussion of the original post. OP mentioned his reasons for thinking Roma might be URM and I was acknowledging the validity of the thinking, if not the URM definition, and stating in a bigger context I think diversity considerations can be rather complicated things. The issue here really isn't the clarity of my writing...

[vanwinkle]

The issue here really isn't the clarity of my writing...

I'm pretty sure that it is, since you never clearly said that no, Roma are not URM until your explanation of how I wasn't clearly reading what you'd said. However, you are being a lot clearer now, which is good.

[jks289]

The issue here really isn't the clarity of my writing...

I'm pretty sure that it is, since you never clearly said that no, Roma are not URM until your explanation of how I wasn't clearly reading what you'd said. However, you are being a lot clearer now, which is good.

First post: "Maybe not URM under the TLS perceived magical URM status..."

Pretty sure that says "not URM"...

[vanwinkle]

The issue here really isn't the clarity of my writing...

I'm pretty sure that it is, since you never clearly said that no, Roma are not URM until your explanation of how I wasn't clearly reading what you'd said. However, you are being a lot clearer now, which is good.

First post: "Maybe not URM under the TLS perceived magical URM status..."

Pretty sure that says "not URM"...

Yes, in a "URM is a magical and not a real status" way. When you refer to something as "magical" it tends to indicate to people you don't believe that it's real. Perhaps you should keep that in mind in the future.

[jks289]

The issue here really isn't the clarity of my writing...

I'm pretty sure that it is, since you never clearly said that no, Roma are not URM until your explanation of how I wasn't clearly reading what you'd said. However, you are being a lot clearer now, which is good.

First post: "Maybe not URM under the TLS perceived magical URM status..."

Pretty sure that says "not URM"...

Yes, in a "URM is a magical and not a real status" way. When you refer to something as "magical" it tends to indicate to people you don't believe that it's real. Perhaps you should keep that in mind in the future.

That actually isn't the definition of magical, but I think you could benefit from looking it up yourself so I won't bother to explain. You not understanding proper and colloquial use of a word doesn't invalidate my argument. Perhaps you shouldn't be such a weirdo, condescending, aggressive dick with strangers on the internet in the future.

[vanwinkle]

That actually isn't the definition of magical, but I think you could benefit from looking it up yourself so I won't bother to explain. You not understanding proper and colloquial use of a word doesn't invalidate my argument. Perhaps you shouldn't be such a weirdo, condescending, aggressive dick with strangers on the internet in the future.

Rather than get into yet another argument with you, I'll simply say that I'm sorry I can't help you see the flaws in your presentation and I hope you're later more open to improving the way you communicate with others at some future time. It will serve you well, especially if you do intend to go to law school someday.

[rowlf]

I'm going to kind of dissent from what's above. I'm a little bit familiar with the situation of Roma and Sinti in Europe. It's really awful. They are definitely an under-represented minority.

URM status, in terms of applying to American law schools, is associated with certain ethnicities because ticking a certain box is a quick way of knowing whether you or your forbears endured (or had a very high chance of enduring) some kind of unfair discriminatory treatment in the United States at some time in American history "Automatic" URM status is defined around American norms and history. The Roma are not a part of American history, so there's no Roma box to tick, and therefore no automatic standing. If the Roma's struggle was part of American history, they would have had a box here, and they would have URM status automatically like other groups have. But the Roma story is not an American one.

Since they don't have a box, a Roma person applying to law school must bring up their background in their personal statement and/or diversity statement for it to be considered. After Roma do that, though, I'm sure they'd get an URM boost from any admissions office with anyone even vaguely aware of the situation of that group in Europe. URM consideration is automatic for American history based URMs, but non-USA-based URMs (i.e. ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples in other countries) can definitely make a case for themselves. It just makes sense. I know of someone who made it into a better college than her stats might normally have won her because she and her parents were refugees (or asylum seekers) fleeing a nation where her minority group was being targeted. It happens, but not automatically.

Should non-USA URMs all have boxes that they can tick? Maybe they deserve them so it can be easier to pick them out in the crowd. If so, how would we determine them all? Could we do this accurately? Fairly? Comprehensively? It's an interesting question. I think in an ideal world we would. Maybe we can. Boxes are starting to vary and break down as people appreciate difference more -- filling out the forms, I noticed that many schools ask for a country-specific Asian background, some schools ask black applicants which branch of the diaspora (Africa proper, Caribbean/Latin America, USA) they associate with. This "extra" stuff wasn't there when I was applying to college, or at least not as much as it is now.

But I think accurateness and fairness in determining non-American URMs could be a problem in including non-American URMS. It's hard enough figuring out how we're going to define our own minorities, much less taking it upon ourselves to figure out everyone's minority groups. American boxes aren't perfectly non-controversial; for example, I think it's pretty odd that people of Middle Eastern decent don't have their own box most of the time. This illustrates the subjectivity in defining different minority groups. It's a political and controversial process because it can be done in different ways.

Not a flame. Just a question.

That's a bit defensive. If this was really an open-hearted question, it wouldn't have occurred to you to add this. I think you are trying to stir something up here about URM status. I'm up for a discussion about the value of how we define URM status (hey, I responded to your post at length), which is nominally what your post was about, but let's keep this respectful. If you want to make a thread about how AA is unfair or silly, start one up (and watch it get locked). Please don't use the plight of the Roma as a boxer's mitt for that agenda.