I’ll be applying to law schools in a couple of months and so I’ve naturally been researching the options here in Mass. and around the U.S. Among the host of issues I have been reading up on is LGBT inclusiveness of which the LSAC (Law School Admissions Council) website has a rather informative 2006 survey on the topic.
I noticed that BU Law is the only non-sectarian law school in Massachusetts that does not view being LGBT as a positive admissions factor. Obviously, that’s not counting BC Law School since they are a Catholic Jesuit school.
Every other law school here does view being LGBT as a positive factor and those schools include Harvard Law, Northeastern Law, Suffolk Law, and New England School of Law.
Being LGBT absolutely gives an applicant a unique perspective. It is a minority that is still institutionally discriminated against on a host of issues ranging from marriage laws and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to immigration laws just to name a few. There is a relatively unusually high number of hate crimes each year and on top of all that there is also the unique and courageous experience of coming out of the closet.
So being non-sectarian, BU Law has no religious argument to use. What is their rationale then? And why, I presume, do they afford a positive admissions factor to race, ethnicity, and gender, but not LGBT status? It seems to be a rather blatant double standard and an outdated view for a law school here in Mass. So, what is the determination process for what diversity characteristics are afforded a positive admissions status so that it can be applied equally and fairly?
If you would like to take a proactive approach, feel free to call Professor David Breen at
617.353.4256 and kindly ask why there is such a disparity. I’ll try to update this diary if and when I receive that information.
has a pretty bad reputation. Lost my sister’s application, among others, a few years back.
<
p>I’ll prob. be applying to schools soon too, and BU won’t be one of them.
I hadn’t heard that before. My concern with that law school is whether they have grade deflation much like their undergrad institution does. There was a NYT article on it and I hear lots of complaints about it from friends that go there.
and contact the appropriate people at BU to first determine whether they still have the non-policy listed in the 2006 survey, and if so, why. Let’s get all the up-to-date facts before going further.
As I stated in the diary, it was a 2006 survey so that policy may have changed. Then again, that isn’t very long ago so we’ll see what the status is tomorrow if someone’s around that knows. If that is the case I’ll happily delete or update this post.
I will note that their website still points to that 2006 survey, so I’d be surprised to learn that anything has changed. Still, best to get the final word from someone other than the web administrator. đŸ™‚
<
p>Whatever the outcome, I’m glad you raised this potential concern. I think people assume that just because there is marriage equality in MA, all there is perfect for LGBT people. That is sadly not the case, as I’m sure you know.
And I had the same thought as you that it probably hasn’t changed since most things don’t unless it’s brought up as an issue which is why I decided to post rather than wait. I will most definitely follow up however and confirm whatever the case is.
<
p>Also rather shocking in that survey is the large number of law schools, including liberal ones, that don’t view it as positive factors.
I spoke with someone who thought it was a great question, but he didn’t have the answer. I was given the name and number of Alissa Leonard at 617-353-3100, but the phone call was never returned. Hopefully I’ll get a chance to speak with her tomorrow.
and was informed that she was not around in 2006 when the survey was held and the school probably just didn’t answer the question rather than actually being opposed to it.
<
p>She tried to quell my concerns by stating that BU Law does want diversity, etc etc. However, she tried speaking in more vague terms of diversity and mentioned that BU Law does indeed have an LGBT group on campus rather than stating LGBT status is treated equally as other diversity characteristics.
<
p>It seems to me that this issue is still up in the air until the survey is re-administered. I’ve left a voicemail with the diversity contact at the LSAC to see if one is in order.
Silber was very conservative and not only resisted but openly mocked inclusivity and other progressive ideas. To this day BU’s undergrad black and Latino figures are half those of the typical big university’s. Also held out against learning disability accommodations. Disbanded the BU high school’s gay-straight alliance. The current admin has no such discernible political bent and is gradually bringing BU into line w/ the norm in a lot of these areas.
Why? I have never liked BU but I think I’ll reconsider now.
I was expecting demolisher to be the first one here with a snide topic that willfully ignores the relevant issues.
<
p>Strange how all the conservatives came flooding back at the end of August. Wonder why…now, if schoolzombie can only stumble back here, we’ll have quite the pallid echo chamber going for you guys.
so how could we possibly participate in blogging when we boating, water skiing, shuffleboard and counting our money.
<
p>PS Anyone have an answer on why special status is needed for LGBTs? Are they mentally handicapped? Does the part of the brain causing sexual persuasion inhibit educational capacity? Should there be a “special status” for conservatives in many colleges since certainly they/we are in the minority?
issue of affirmative action as a practice. What it is looking at is the unequal treatment of different classes within such practice.
<
p>Secondly, touching upon the topic of affirmative action itself….admissions is never solely on the basis of academic achievement. That’s the primary concern, but there’s a whole host of others that contribute to students bringing something to a school. Some examples include physical ability for sports, prior work experience, volunteer experience and yes, even diversity including race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, etc. And the way most affirmative actions work nowadays is in the sense of the “Harvard Plan” which is basically a point system. Someone who is wholly unqualified isn’t going to get in over someone that is. However, if there are two students that are rather similar in regards to education and grades then these issues may bump one student over the other.
<
p>Thirdly, shame on your for mocking LGBT being included in the view of diversity. Among minorities today, they are the only ones that are openly discriminated against by the government and so they have a rather unique perspective on life because of such hardships. That enough reason for you? And I already stated all that in my diary if you actually took the time to read it.
<
p>So people who just want to “fit in” like everyone else. People who don’t want to be discriminated against since they are no different than the next person get “special status” merely because they are LGBT? That is absurd! Why is it a positive? Year ago maybe it would be a negative but shouldn’t it be irrelevant in today’s world as to whom you want to have relationships with?
<
p>As for my shame, what exactly does diversity consist of? What are the metrics we use? Does it include race, ethnicity, class, income levels, sexual persuasion, abortion stance, ideology, political party… I mean where does it stop? Should Republicans be considered a minority in schools like Harvard if they are only represented by a small minority of the population? How about Mormons?
<
p>At some point equality will really mean equality. But measures like this don’t help (IMO).
That’s fine if you don’t agree with affirmative action, but apply those beliefs equally. That means no attention is given to family members of alumni, physical ability, work experience, and extracurricular activities as well.
<
p>However, if a law school is going to use affirmative action then it should also be applied equally in that instance as well. If gender, ethnicity, and race are deemed a positive admissions factor, then LGBT status should be as well.
<
p>As for family members of alumni… Harvard like many other private schools are PRIVATE SCHOOLS. They can do whatever they want. They have an endowment of over $34 Billion dollars so if they want some guys nephew to go there because he gave them $1M good luck to both of them.
I am curious how this all turned out a year later? Did you learn more? Did you apply? And where did you end up?
<
p>To be frank, I personally strongly disagree with the idea that you would be picked over someone else who is clearly more qualified simply because of sexual orientation. I mean no offense… I do believe that gay marriage should be legalized across the nation. However, the argument that LGBT should benefit because African Americans do holds no water. It is that sort of absent logic that perpetuates racism and prejudice in the first place. And indeed, these policies are racist and wrong. Racism and discrimination are never better or worse morally depending on which side you are on.
<
p>Anyway, I wish you good luck and respect your opinion. I’d like to know how it all turned out.