law school

This was posted on a Canadian law school forum in response to a comment about affirmative action. I thought it was quite powerful:

I take it that you are against affirmative action because you feel it somehow lowers the quality and competence of the legal profession. Such a viewpoint is one adopted by most conservatives who believe that any form of affirmative action is reverse discrimination. But to simplify a very complex social issue in such manner is rather misinformed and inappropriate.

First, one must understand that law is unlike medicine or mathematics, in that it is a social science. It does not necessarily adhere to the same rigorous laws of nature; but rather the laws are a reflection and combination of social and democratic values, precedence, logic, and common sense among other things. Furthermore, to be a lawyer is to take part in a democratic process as an officer of the court, and in some cases, part of the bona fide qualification may be that the lawyer come from different ethnicities and backgrounds. Now, there is no doubt a few anglo saxon white males can competently represent aggrieved black or asian members of the population, but one would have give some thought whether a black or asian lawyer, by virtue of their background, can provide better representation. An important element of oral argumentation derives from the lawyer's personal identification with the injustice felt by his or her client, and it may be the case that a WASP lawyer could never fully understand the inconvenience and insult felt by a black sportsman who is periodically stopped by police by the mere reason his skin color is black and he is driving a Mercedes.

There is also the question of what constitutes merit. Is it merely to be a combination of one's undergraduate marks and the LSAT? Is there a magical percentage that could be assigned to each to provide a person with a true merit index? Or, is it the case that perhaps merit should include consideration of how one overcame adversity, structural discrimination, and overwhelming odds? Is merit based on academic standards to be the best predictor of success in the legal profession? Or is success also dependent on such "intangibles" as determination, perseverance, and a heart inclined towards justice?

One must understand that some members of the minority who entered law school by taking advantage of "special access" are not necessarily being given an inappropriate, and reverse-discriminatory push by society. Often, these members had to work through poverty, learn a new language, and adjust to new cultural and societal values to get to where they are. It may be that their true ability would have given them superior LSAT + GPA scores had they had parents who were upper-middle class, who were lawyers, who spoon fed them through the best education money could offer, and who then used their network to ensure jobs and success for kids. We see a multitude of examples such as this in society, and in a way, this could be regarded as discrimination in a systemic sense, in that unmerited white individuals are inappropriately occupying positions of power in society. Many would make such an argument against President Bush, for example.

I, myself, am a member of ethnic minority, and I applied to law schools under special access category. I was born in a family that lived near poverty income, that didn't know whether there would be enough food the next month, and that faced financial and systemic barriers one after the other. Still, I persevered. Although my marks from some university years were not stellar, because I had to work two jobs to support myself, because, to a large degree, I was still learning the English language and Canadian culture, and because I didn't have parents who could guide and coach me through the years, I held on to the belief that one day, I could become a lawyer. And here I am today.

I suppose if the admissions committee had adhered to your view that GPA + LSAT should provide the only reliable index for merit, I wouldn't be where I am today. And I'm thankful that merit, as perceived by them, is quite different from yours. For, today, I work harder than my peers, and I work with a sense of passion and gratitude for the profession. My marks are above average, but beyond that, I believe that I will one day become a lawyer who will exceed even my respected peers in his dedication to clients and results achieved.

Simply, I think those who beileve law schools should weigh primarily on GPA+LSAT index to deny special access students are very misinformed. I ask them to consider, whether had they gone through what I did and faced the barriers I did -- whether they could made it to law school themselves.

This was one of the posts in response:

You didn't persevere. You took advantage of a system that holds you to a lower standard. I'm a white male. I get no breaks, so at least I have the satisfaction of knowing that I've earned my position in life.


Wow. That went over his head now didn't it.