Spring Break
Does Affirmative Action Hurt Minorities?
J.C. Flores, 4L
Issue date: 1/1/01 Section: Southwestern Community
December 2007
Hell-bent on proving that affirmative action hurts minority students accepted to elite law schools, UCLA Prof. Richard H Sander was properly denied his request for race-based data (for the second time) in a unanimous Nov. 8 vote by the California Bar’s Committee of Bar Examiners, said SW officials.
Sander petitioned the Bar to conduct studies to prove his “mismatch effect” theory that “aggressive racial preferences” are to blame for “undermining the performance” of African- American law students (and to a lesser degree, Hispanics) because they are “mismatched” with colleagues with better credentials and they “learn less, are less likely to graduate and [are] nearly twice as likely to fail the bar than they would have been had they gone to less elite schools.” Sander asked for race and gender-based data on LSAT scores, schools attended, repeater status and specific bar exam scores, as well as a means of looking at the “variation in the extent to which black and Hispanic law students receive and capitalize on racial preferences.” (For more info, see www.law.ucla.edu/sander and www.sharejd.blogspot)
Dean Garth sent the Bar a letter opposing Sander’s proposal to collect school-level data. Garth “knows Sander very well,” having worked with him on an American Bar Foundation project, “After the J.D.,” tracking 5,000 lawyers.
“He’s certainly a good researcher, but he clearly has become captivated by his effort to prove his ‘mismatch’ theory,” said Garth. “I don’t think he fudged the data, he just overstated what he found. We don’t really know the process that produces the data he talked about.”
Prof. H. Nyree Gray, SW’s Director of Diversity Affairs, believes Sander’s data is flawed because it does not account
for the impact a law school as an institution will play in an individual’s outcome.
“Many minorities may feel marginalized due to the small number of underrepresented students enrolled and the lack of support while in school,” said Gray. “In addition, the data does not account for the impact of economics. Many low-income students -- of all races -- face barriers to
academic success.”
Also agreeing with the Bar’s decision was SW Faculty Admissions Committee Chair, Prof. K.C. Sheehan. She noted that the “mismatch effect” theory would not apply to SW because “there’s not a gap between ‘regular admits’ and minorities. We don’t take someone we think is not able
to succeed in law school.”
She added that SW has “absolutely no” numerical quotas or goals for ethnic or racial minorities, taking a “totality of circumstances” type approach. SW looks at a person’s whole background, considering both accomplishments and any hardships the applicant has overcome.
SW applicants with the highest LSATs and GPAs “are usually offered admission; the lowest usually denied, but some go to a second read by faculty, along with the majority of applications, which fall in the middle,” said Sheehan. “We don’t take someone we think is not able to succeed in law school.”
J.C. Flores is the former national communications director for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Hell-bent on proving that affirmative action hurts minority students accepted to elite law schools, UCLA Prof. Richard H Sander was properly denied his request for race-based data (for the second time) in a unanimous Nov. 8 vote by the California Bar’s Committee of Bar Examiners, said SW officials.
Sander petitioned the Bar to conduct studies to prove his “mismatch effect” theory that “aggressive racial preferences” are to blame for “undermining the performance” of African- American law students (and to a lesser degree, Hispanics) because they are “mismatched” with colleagues with better credentials and they “learn less, are less likely to graduate and [are] nearly twice as likely to fail the bar than they would have been had they gone to less elite schools.” Sander asked for race and gender-based data on LSAT scores, schools attended, repeater status and specific bar exam scores, as well as a means of looking at the “variation in the extent to which black and Hispanic law students receive and capitalize on racial preferences.” (For more info, see www.law.ucla.edu/sander and www.sharejd.blogspot)
Dean Garth sent the Bar a letter opposing Sander’s proposal to collect school-level data. Garth “knows Sander very well,” having worked with him on an American Bar Foundation project, “After the J.D.,” tracking 5,000 lawyers.
“He’s certainly a good researcher, but he clearly has become captivated by his effort to prove his ‘mismatch’ theory,” said Garth. “I don’t think he fudged the data, he just overstated what he found. We don’t really know the process that produces the data he talked about.”
Prof. H. Nyree Gray, SW’s Director of Diversity Affairs, believes Sander’s data is flawed because it does not account
for the impact a law school as an institution will play in an individual’s outcome.
“Many minorities may feel marginalized due to the small number of underrepresented students enrolled and the lack of support while in school,” said Gray. “In addition, the data does not account for the impact of economics. Many low-income students -- of all races -- face barriers to
academic success.”
Also agreeing with the Bar’s decision was SW Faculty Admissions Committee Chair, Prof. K.C. Sheehan. She noted that the “mismatch effect” theory would not apply to SW because “there’s not a gap between ‘regular admits’ and minorities. We don’t take someone we think is not able
to succeed in law school.”
She added that SW has “absolutely no” numerical quotas or goals for ethnic or racial minorities, taking a “totality of circumstances” type approach. SW looks at a person’s whole background, considering both accomplishments and any hardships the applicant has overcome.
SW applicants with the highest LSATs and GPAs “are usually offered admission; the lowest usually denied, but some go to a second read by faculty, along with the majority of applications, which fall in the middle,” said Sheehan. “We don’t take someone we think is not able to succeed in law school.”
J.C. Flores is the former national communications director for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Be the first to comment on this story