By: Jodi Rave
PHILADELPHIA - Some of the greatest legal scholars of our time recently sat in judgment of a hypothetical court case, asked to determine the fairness of a futuristic race-based affirmative action program.
As I listened from the audience, the scenario - set four years into the future - seemed too familiar. The lawyers, professors and judges made arguments and fired questions about a university admissions test that relied on DNA testing as proof of students' connection to a cultural heritage.
The case: Should a male student who grew up in an African-American community be given more or less consideration for adding diversity to a university campus, compared to a female student adopted by whites and raised in a white-and-wealthy neighborhood?
What if a DNA lab report showed the first student's genetic makeup as 24 percent black versus the female student, whose report showed she was genetically 26 percent Asian and black?
A Peter Jennings Project journalism fellowship recently led me to the National Constitution Center, where I had the chance to meet and listen to legal experts like Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Harvard Law School Dean Elena Kagan and Stanford Law School professor Kathleen Sullivan.
Sullivan argued the moot case before a panel of judges. She represented the young man who grew up in a 95 percent black neighborhood, while professor Charles Ogletree of Harvard Law School defended the woman who recently discovered her black-Asian genetic makeup.
The argument central to this case asked whether the mechanics of a blood test should trump diversity acquired through living in a culturally ethnic community.
As the mock hearing neared its end, it was clear which lawyer would claim victory.
Read more here: http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2008/03/14/jodirave/rave15.txt
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
No comments:
Post a Comment