Indeed, something is wrong. Something is very wrong. Consider the following: The policies underlying these outcomes are entrenched in the selfish, self-perpetuating motives and consequential behavior of the constantly mushrooming academic affirmative action "theocracy." As Gail Heriot (professor of law at the University of San Diego and a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights) explains, the "diversity bureaucracy" has swollen over the past 40 years to a point where many individuals, comfortable and coddled in their cushy bureaucratic jobs, would prefer that the failure of affirmative action Law School admission policies not be disclosed to the general public. Furthermore, numerous people have built their reputations upon the demonstrably inefficient and unsuccessful ruse of "race-based admissions" to U.S. Law Schools. With their reputations at stake, these ignoble citizens who perpetuate such fraud cringe at the thought of any public revelation of the tenuous foundation upon which their pride and pecuniary ease rest. And who is damaged by this? The students, of course. Having been matched to the wrong schools by way of insidious affirmative action admission policies, many otherwise worthy Law School minority students find themselves in academic environments for which they are inadequately prepared. As indicated above, only 57% of blacks who enter Law School ever pass the bar exam. The remainder are often burdened with enormous student loan balances and damaged psyches, not to mention a seriously compromised sense of self-esteem. Meanwhile, the priesthood of the affirmative action "theocracy" basks in the imagined glory of their heinous ruse. For further details, study Richard Sander's essay, "A Systematic Analysis Of Affirmative Action In American Law Schools," : http://www.law.ucla.edu/sander/Systemic/final/SanderFINAL.pdf Do such issues plague Law Schools abroad? Are the Law Schools in the U.K., Mexico, Poland, Vietnam, or South Korea plagued with such inefficiencies? Or is this strictly a USA phenomenon? Source: Heriot, Gail, "Affirmative Action Backfires," Wall Street Journal, August 24, 2007: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010522
Anytime standards are lowered, for whatever reason, the result is always going to be an inferior product.
We should be steadily RAISING our standards, not lowering them. Creating the visage of equality for the sake of creating that visage is harmful. Standards are blind to race-- either you make them or not. Why is that so hard to grasp? ~String
I always thought that the point of affirmative action wasn't "lowering standards so women and minorities can succeed" but "lowering standards to account for the subtle biases against minorities that have artificially depressed their numbers." I myself would have to admit that if I were faced with two job applicants who were in every way identical, save that one was black and one was white, part of me would want to give the position to the white guy. Once I concede that, I have to wonder, suppose my perception of the two as being "identicle" is biased in the same way? If true, it would mean that the black applicant was in fact superior, but his superiority has to overcome my latent and subconscious prejudice. In that case, I'd welcome affirmative action, since it's just correcting my error.
Were all the black students admitted under affirmative action? If these students did not go to law school at all, they are guaranteed not to pass the bar. I think that the 57% of blacks that do enter our justice system (if your numbers can be trusted), are an asset to this nation. With no black lawyers and judges, there could be no justice, and at the very least there would be the perception of injustice.
Affirmative Action is simple state-mandated racism. Ain't no other word for it ....plain, simple racism. Baron Max
I think that the point is that affirmative action fails somewhere. So if you lower the standards in law school, but not on the bar exam, you'll have people who spent four years and tens of thousands of dollars in school, who aren't able to be effective lawyers because they can't pass the bar exam. The same for Buisiness school, or med school, or whatever. SOMEwhere the standards will be color-blind, and the best people will succede. Whether it be getting a job for a Fortune 500 company, or passing the medical board exams and getting a good resident position, whatever. Everyone went to the same schools, and (presuming that those schools are all accredited) took the same classes. Surely not. And I'm even sure that there are cases where some students, who would not have gotten into law school otherwise, got the break that they needed. The question isn't one of race, I think. There are probably plenty of rich white kids who fail the bar, too. The question is one of academic integrity, which has been willingly compromised for some other reason. This is a problem that should be attacked at a lower level, not a higher one. Lowering admission standards in professional schools doesn't help society on a whole. Primary and secondary education in the US is in a very sad condition.
The fact is no school accepts students on standards alone, all kinds of other factors are considered, the person's life experience, quality of the application essay, unique skills and perspective. I don't see why coming from an underperforming school district and managing to overcome this adversity shouldn't be given extra consideration. Often it's not absolute but relative acheivement that is more important.
One's epidermal pigmentation is irrelevant with respect to both the dispensing of justice and the perception of injustice. Remember that justice is color blind in the USA - home of the free and land of the brave.
It's always been more complicated than that. As Lyndon Johnson said: In his day, I'd say that was clearly true, since there were so many areas that denied blacks basic ediucation and then demanded that they meet education-related criteria in order to be able to vote or get a promotion or work in certain jobs. That racism is less overt today though doesn't completely negate the point. If private/* racism holds minorities back (as surely it does) then a government counterbalance can theoretically put them in the same position they'd have been in but for the private racism. You call that counterbalance "racism" (and it certainly does require making distinctions based on race, albeit with a non-invidious motive), but I suspect you'd readily defend the right of private citizens to engage in private racism (without your necessarily endorsing such private racism). ----------- /* By "private" I mean both racism imposed to the detriment of minorities or women by private citizens not acting with state authority, and governmental racism that is imposed tacitly (whether subconsciously or consciously). There is no public and overt discrimination of that sort any more (save in the military), thank God. ---------- So long as the government *only* put people back into the position they'd have been in without the private racism, I don't see how anyone can object. The real problem is that judging the position a person would have been in is just so hard, that you can always declare any such solution questionable and unfair, but, then again, so is the private racism that we all know exists.
As the eloquent and lucid Baron Max so succintly stated earlier, "Affirmative Action is simple state-mandated racism. Ain't no other word for it ....plain, simple racism. " Now, just because racist affirmative action policies poison the U.S. social structure, that does not mean that such hideous race-based paradigms affect justice in the USA. Again, justice is blind in the United States.
Justice may be theoretically blind, but I guarantee there is a perception of injustice when a black person is convicted by an all-white jury.
Juries are not blind, an they are the ones who send people to jail. The truly blind are people who believe mere slogans like "justice is blind" without comparing it to the actual results. Even if, on balance after googling up some information on that point, you do not think the system is provably racist, you still have to concede that it's pretty classist, which proves that it isn't blind. I'd recommend this book for a fairly balanced view of the question (though most of its contributors do conclude, based on their personal evaluation of the evidence, that the system evinces racial bias).
Relative achievement, such as class ranking and, to a degree, GPA, actually overstate a potential student's abilities when said student comes from an "underperforming school district."
In Canada(where there was no slavery), we have "Equal Opportunity". It is anything but equal. Basically 'Caucasian looking men, get lost', is the message when you see this.
That may be so, but the ability to overcome adversity is a particular skill for which there is no standardized test. It shows character.
I think the attitude also matters. Going into a system where you are expected to fail does not do wonders for accomplishment.
Not sure. I for one, can't be bothered. It prevented me from getting my first job for 3 years, but now only hinders when applying to government, some corporations and bi-lingual stuff.
