Kaulapi World

About a month away from completing my 4th semester, and 2nd year as an evening student. While saving any overly reflective comments until I’m actually through the gate and survived the seasonal trials and stress that comes with studying the law part time while juggling a full time day job, I’ll say that things have been progressing along, slowly but surely. My cases are becoming easier to read, and the legal reasoning has become clearer and easier to spot quickly. This is not to say that any of the material has gotten any easier, but I as usual, I’m finding ways to adapt and push forward when faced with a challenge. I think a lot of this has to do with my choice of classes this past summer and fall semester, I kind of went off the beaten path by enrolling in a clinical program which in retrospect helped put all of this training into context. In many ways it was the human element that I found missing from my first year - brought back some memories of taking pre-med science courses and craving for something more fundamental to a professional field of study.

I’m looking into my classes for the next couple of years, weighing options with the required staple and bar-related courses. There are some that I’m having a hard time conceptualizing why I would need to take, and then there are others that I would like to take, but am limited based on my evening hours schedule. I’m finding myself drawn to similar topics as I did back at La Follette, more along the public policy route, with some twists and turns.

Recent discussion in class dealt with the Grutter v. Bollinger case involving affirmative action policies at the University of Michigan. Reading the case I’m sure struck a nerve among many of my classmates in the sense that the case involved a haole student who was denied admission to an “elite law school” but who probably had a similar LSAT/GPA profile as many of us sitting in the classroom. Instead of “settling” for a lower ranked law school, the student decided to sue the university claiming racial discrimination. There has been some talk recently about law school rankings which inevitably enters the law student’s mind because they seem to matter so much for employment, and overall assurances that you’re not wasting 3-4 years of your live on a degree that will be perceived marginally good enough, depending on the circle you associate with, of course.

My take on affirmative action to me has always been mixed. On one hand I think that we cannot deny the history (and disturbingly recent history) of racial discrimination and we as a society should be actively engaging it. On the other hand I do not think that it is a fair system, and that it can also breed some of the same discrimination and racial tensions if it is not applied equitably. It definitely has its limits as with any other law or policy, the ultimate goal is to discriminate one class against another. in free market terms, there are always winners and losers, we as society have to decide who wins, who loses, by how much, and for how long.  I think I agree most with O’Connor’s comment in the case that she could envision that 25 years from now there might not be a need for affirmative action.  I don’t know about the prediction of 25 years by itself, but I do agree with the broad concept of using racial preferences to address a historical wrong if it meets a certain standard of scrutiny - however they can’t be sustained indefinitely forever.  Of course saying when the playing field is truly “level” is the hard part.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 11th, 2007 at 5:45 am and is filed under law school, wonkish policy stuff. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.