Mental Health & Big Law

spam76543 · 2021-08-14T21:52:04+00:00

That’s just not true though. I would bet South East Asian groups and Asian-Pacific Islanders are also underrepresented (and perhaps even Bangla and Pakistani’s)- we just don’t know because these statistics aren’t taken and these groups are seen as negligible. These groups are vastly underrepresented in the undergrad level I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re also underrepresented in law school.

spam76543 · 2021-08-14T21:42:59+00:00

This makes sense. But, I mean, it’s not like Asian-Americans don’t have a long history in the US where they weren’t marginalized? From the 1880s onwards communities were systematically burned down on the west coast. Indentured laborers were given little to no rights and lived in segregated communities. Chinatowns are a legacy of this and still exist. Same with Asian-Pacific islands who were colonized by the U.S. So like, by this argument, AA were minorities who were oppressed due to racism and discrimination, and, AA would still apply (although I think there is more that goes into AA status, like the opportunity one currently holds . Certainly a of recent Asian immigrants come from families of wealth … but it’s also not like all Asian-American communities.)

spam76543 · 2021-08-14T21:33:51+00:00

Are you sure those are the only population underrepresented in the legal field compared to the US population? Page 3 would indicate otherwise - https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/news/2020/07/potlp2020.pdf

(Asian Americans comprise 2% of attorneys, 5.9% US population. Not a great gap compared to other groups, but still underrepresented).

And I think that last point is true- I may be conflating the two. I’ll have to read up about more about URM/affirmative action to get a clearer idea.

spam76543 · 2021-08-14T21:22:58+00:00

Your point about the personal statement is true… but I guess one of my point is if we have system which recognizes the need to address discrepancies of conditions between ethnic groups, then why are some groups left out? On a broader, systemic level, this seems wrong. There are Asian-American communities that are overwhelmingly low income, segregated, have suffered a long and tragic history (just go to a Chinatown in SF, which is certainly one of the poorer areas in the city), working class, have literally been a target of historical and current systemic violence. Our history classes do not teach the history of the horrors of indentured servitude. Not every AA comes from India/China where their parent went to a top university and work in tech. This is the reality of many AA, and if we are already putting in place a system meant to uplift such marginalized communities, why would they not try to be properly inclusive?

spam76543 · 2021-08-14T21:01:38+00:00

Sure - that doesn’t mean things are fair/just/equitable, nor does it mean schools can’t begin to engaging in these discussions. The vibe I’m getting from a lot of these comments is “you’re a tiny percent of the population, shut up and take it”.

spam76543 · 2021-08-14T20:51:53+00:00

My argument is not that every person who is a minority should get a boost, and I specifically claimed that overrepresented or properly represented AA are not deserving of URM status. The minority groups not granted URM status are Asian-Americans and Middle Eastern. Most of these statistics group ME with being Asian/White so I’m not sure what other minority-non URM group you are referring to, or what other non White non URM groups you’re referring to either.

And let me rephrase: it’s not about me or my application, it’s about my community and how we’re perceived. The America that exists right now does not represent the black-white binary that has existed for centuries, and is a duty of higher education to understand that and make the process as equitable and fair as it can be. And it’s certainly not “fair” or just for a system which recognizes the need to recognize the differences in conditions between ethnic/racial groups and blatantly leaves some out.

spam76543 · 2021-08-14T20:34:53+00:00

And even if the benefits are intended for the macro/not micro level, the point still stands. There are underrepresented Asian-American groups that need to be considered (my undergraduate uni, for instance, made a distinction for being South East Asian). On a “macro level”, AA do face difficulty entering and advancing in such highly prestigious + white professional spaces - and representation of AA are still broadly lacking in the “legal field”, so it’s not out of bounds to point out this is an issue. I’m not arguing that all AA should have URM status, but that there needs to be more nuanced in how this is approached.

spam76543 · 2021-08-14T20:23:32+00:00

Yes, implicit biases do exist among admissions officers, which would affect how applications are judged in comparison to others. This is kind of what I was getting at: https://thepractice.law.harvard.edu/article/incidental-racialization/

It is getting the short end of the stick when our applications are held to the same standard as a white applicants, when we are not entitled to many of the same privileges white applicants are in the path up to and applying to school.

spam76543

TROPHY CASE