Decades ago, Jewish lawyers with real merit were actually being discriminated against, so they got together to form their own firms instead of whining for handouts. Due to their better abilities, Jewish firms like Wachtell Lipton, Paul Weiss and Weil Gotshail have managed to thrive and dominate the legal world.

If Blacks are truly being oppressed and discriminated against despite their merit and AA, and their skills are being underrecognized, they are free to form their own Black-run firms and outcompete the other firms with their superior skills. Why there are no Black-founded firms in the Vault 100, I leave that as an exercise to the reader.

Don't see why she points out that they have white attorneys from bad schools. Is she claiming that covington would prefer to hire a white attorney from villanova over a black attorney from GULC? I doubt it. Firms are bending over backwards to hire black attorneys.

Maybe black law students just don't like going to a law firm that doesn't pay bonuses?

serious question: people from T-14s work as staff attorneys? i thought the only people who work as staff attorneys are TTT grads who can't get a better job. can somebody please explain this to me?

What does being diverse have to do with providing legal services? This is just a blatant power grab!!! "My ancestors may or may not have been discriminated against 100 years ago, now give me money"- Diversity Movement.

A fancy pedigree does not equate to intelligence. Her writing supports the staff attorney decision made by C&B. What is a General Council, pray tell?

She makes it sound as though they hired #1 and #2 from georgetown, and because one was white they were made an associate, and the black one was made a staff attorney. What a crock of shit.

If african americans are only 10% of the population, how come we're complaining that they make up 10% of the law firm workforce? Our we supposed to "set aside" 50% of the spots for 10% of the people? And if we do, how on Earth will we succeed without Asians or Indians?

"It's disheartening to then discover that the black student who borrows $120,000 to attend Georgetown will only earn half that of the white associate who's paid $60,000 to attend the University of Maryland."

Can you say "class rank?" I hate to make unfair assumptions, but in an extremely hierarchal profession (whether for good reasons or ill), you can't just make statements like this and have them taken seriously. My guess is that the Maryland grad-turned associates at Covington were rock stars and the GULC grad-turned staff attorneys rounded out the bottom of the class.

Sure enough, the three Maryland-grad associates at Covington DC were all order of the coif, two were articles editors and one was EIC of their Law Review.

None of the matters complained about strike me as particularly terrible. All of the comparative analysis offered is superficial, and if you accept as an operating premise that a law firm wants to hire the best people, and uses grades and school rank as an imperfect proxy for ability, you'll get results that don't square with our visions of proportionate racial utopia.

See, I told you Georgetown really is a top law school.

With calculators, 2:47.

This doesn't seem surprising given the relatively poor performance of most black students in law school, across the board. How many black students are on law review? How many graduate magna cum laude or make order of the coif? I don't think a single black student has made law review or graduated with these honors at my school in the 3 years I've been here. Note: I could be wrong on this; it might not literally be zero. There may have been 1 or 2 black students on law review or graduating magna/order of the coif, but the number is without a doubt tiny.

My anecdotal observations support what has generally been written about this phenomenon: black students consistently perform poorly in law school, relative to the rest of their class. The problem isn't that Covington is discriminating against blacks. The problem is that of the vast majority of blacks who attend law school do not graduate with the qualifications and capabilities to get the "best" jobs. This is the problem that must be addressed.

What causes this? It's not that black students in law school are stupid. But for some reason, they tend to have a very difficult time performing as well as other law students. So it is not surprising that as a whole, the career prospects of black law students appear somewhat stunted when compared to the prospects of non-black students from similar schools.

I'm generally skeptical of race-related claims in the office environment, but this one strikes me legitimate, or worse, horrific. I'll be interested to see how C&B responds.

I'm horrified by the sense of entitlement.

Wachtell was founded in 1965, which i applaud for its success. But, keep in mind Blacks could barely get into law school in 1965. Lots of black firms have started since the establishment of Jim Crow. It takes a few years to build a Vault 100 firm. Give us time.

Oh and btw, many of the most talented black lawyers in the 60's were too busy with the whole equal rights movement thing to worry about starting a firm.

2:48 - Covington did respond (scroll up to see their statement).

It's interesting that the firm's statement highlights referrals from current staff attorneys as a means to getting hired. Skadden also has an unwritten policy of only hiring new staff attorneys that are recommende by current staff attorneys.

As a group, staff attorneys are a mixed bag. If you check the Cravath "discovery attorney" listings, you will see that there are many from top schools; Skadden goes as low as New York Law School to fill the positions. Hughes Hubbard employs as staff attorneys people from St. John's. S & C populates its "litigation analysts" with contract attorneys who have worked at the firm and consequently gets some TTTs. Covington NY's staff attorneys mostly hail from mediocre schools and sit on an unfurnished floor in cubicles alongside contract attorneys.

Cue white anger!

If the staff attorneys are not shown on the website, how can Covington be "using" them to show their diversity?

Wait a minute - I thought Penn Law was part of Penn State University. Am I wrong?

The creditial gap isn't very suprising if you consider the impact of affirmative action in admissions and blind grading. Law schools need to release their admissions data in a way that is disaggregated by race so that we can actually determine how much of a correlation there is with entrance stats and class rank. This is a huge issue because affirmative action in law school admissions seems to significantly hurt the job prospects of minorities that accept the admissions boost.

2:54, Covington's response was a cut and paste of their diversity policy.

2:43,

You are exactly right. She is comparing vast groups at different scales. It would like comparing Wachtell to some firm that is ranked 250 on Vault. Unless, some type of attorney by attorney analysis is conducted there is no way to tell C&B is doing anything wrong or right.

Further, the hiring is completely different for staff attorneys and associates. Her comments also lack a level of sophistication in knowledge of law firms. I would guess she was under some misguided assumption that staff attorneys can get promoted, are on partnership track and get substantive work beyond document review. When that is completely inaccurate assumption since staff attorneys are really just glorified legal assistants.

Granted, she was/is a staff attorney so that certainly allows for her bias.

Further, there are 5 attorneys from Catholic - 2 staff attorneys, 1 special counsel, 1 T&E specialist (whatever that is) and 1 partner. There is one associate from Villanova law who graduated Summa Cum Laude and clerked at the 4th Circuit. There is one associate from UK law - also summa cum laude and clerked on the 6th Circuit.

I would say the basis of her article is completely misplaced and on a comparable scale to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition actions that work in a similar fashion of screaming racism that lack any factual basis.

they be hidin' all the white women too.

Hey- I went to Villanova. Its not Harvard Law, but if you are LR and top of your class vs. bottom 10% at HLS, what do you expect?

I did okay at Villanova and sit nicely inhouse. And, yes, I am white. But I got the woman thing going for me.

Only from you, 2:58...

And yet, arguably the most famous attorney of our lifetime is Johnnie Cochrane.

Would someone be so kind to explain the role that a staff attorney plays in a large law firm.

disgusting georgetown trolling

Any claim that Covington has some racist hiring policy that places black students into staff attorney positions is pure insanity. Anyone who has had the slightest amount of experience with big firm hiring knows that firms are bending over backwards to hire minority attorneys. If you can't get a biglaw associate gig out of somewhere like Harvard, Georgetown or Duke, the reason is that you finished at the bottom academically, not because you are white, black, or green. The article is entirely crap.

What is actually interesting here, however, is that Covington may be hiring large portions of minority staff attorneys in order to trumpet diversity that may not really exist. IF they are counting these staff attorneys for diversity purposes, that is a bit disingenuous.

There is ONE, count em, ONE girl from Villanova. I personally know her. She is one of the smartest people I know. LR, magna...magna at W&L beforehand. Maybe this chick should meet her before she starts crying racism.

maybe the poor performance in law school is an outgrowth of the whole "stop snitching" thing?

"This includes the innovative benefit of pay for pro bono work, and our staff attorneys average about 70 hours of pro bono work a year." This statement is incredibly ironic. They explain that blacks may be attracted to staff attorney positions by the pro bono opportunities, suggesting that blacks are necessarily less serious private attorneys because of their interest in pro bono work. Way to go Covington!!!

"black staff attorneys (like its black partners and associates) hail from top law schools like Harvard, Duke and Georgetown while several white associates and partners attended schools like Catholic, Kentucky and Villanova (all ranked well below 50). Taken as a whole, the black staff attorneys' average law school rank is higher than that of white staff attorneys at the firm."

This certainly not an issue unique to big law. If you are mildly observant you will notice this phenom throughout biglaw.

I thought Covington sold coats...

(sarcasm to lighten the mood...)

3:04,

She was also a 4th Circuit Clerk, which is kind of like going to to Villanova for undergrad and Yale for law school - it's a sick credential that tops graduating in the middle of the class at georgetown, writing a book and choosing to work as a writer instead of as a big firm associate.

What is the difference between a staff attorney and a regular firm attorney? Lower pay for fewer hours? Do staff attorneys work weird shifts, like overnight? I am just wondering what the distinction is.

I wouldnt characterize anything posted as white anger. In reality, people are upset with an article that lacks any factual basis and doesnt back up assertions...because they dont exist.

Racism? Yeah, it absolutely exists in the real world and the legal world is no exception. Anyone that denies this is living in a fairy tale. That being said, arguing that being African-American is a handicap in getting hired at a big firm, Covington included, evidences a complete lack of understanding of law firm hiring. Similarly, the articles attempt to portray the associates at lower ranked schools as less intelligent than staff attorneys from Harvard (if they even exist) is so wrong its barely worth arguing. Someone in the top 1% at Villanova is smarter than someone in the bottom 1% at Georgetown - just ask the circuit judges that hired them or every other firm that would rather hire the Villanova grad.

2:57

There have been studies on this using LSAC data (though I can't find the link now). There is a very high correlation with LSAT and class rank. When GPA is added to the mix, the correlation is even higher. IIRC, the correlation between LSAT alone and class rank was 0.30.

HA! Blacks complaining that whites get the same job with lower credentials. . . why does this sound so familiar?

From a TTT school to a TTT firm, what a shock...

2:48,
Affirmative action is a major reason why black students perform poorly relative to their classmates:

"[W]hen elite law schools lower their academic standards in order to admit a more racially diverse class, schools one or two tiers down feel they must do the same. As a result, there is now a serious gap in academic credentials between minority and non-minority law students across the pecking order, with the average black student's academic index more than two standard deviations below that of his average white classmate."

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010522

You lawyer folk seem to be in a profession that equates to a very stressful and unhappy lifestyle. Sounds like many of yall's lives suck - competitive overachievers.

Yes, let's compare the bottom of the barrel at Harvard, Duke and Georgetown (thank you affirmative action) with the top of the class circuit clerks from Catholic, Kentucky and Villanova.

It's ironic that she puts so much faith into law school rankings but has no clue about class rankings.

And what about the blatant hiring racism in the NBA and the NFL? Whites are being shut out of jobs that pay millions.

Tier-2/3 students that go to Big Law are like the last kids picked for kick-ball. If you can’t beat them out for a spot on the team, you’re probably in the special-ed program. So put your helmet back on, go down to that room in the basement with the brown carpet, play with all the toys that have no sharp edges – and stop crying about how Tier-2/3 students are robbing you of opportunities.

And this is news because?

Skadden has a barrio full of staff attorneys who make $.32 an hour.

But thanks to AA a black from Harvard and a white from Maryland have the same LSAT and GPA

I think what many white law associate don't realize is that despite all the BS about loving diversity, law firms fear that black lawyers are one of the following: 1) really interested in pro bono shit; 2) not competent, even if they have the grades; and 3) won't be successful at business development. That bullshit comment about "pro bono opportunities" says it all.

This whole idea of racial proportioning is absurd. The reason some minorities don't get hired or don't get into schools is not because they're black but because they're not competitive with their competitors.

If this continues, the same argument can be made against sports. Imagine that NBA/NFL teams were forced to recruit players by race proportion that represents the general population...

Umm, most blacks I know from Harvard graduate cum or magna from ELITE universities, not U of Maryland. Try again, 3:19.

Affirmative action is not fairy dust for shitty applications.

Jesus Christ, I can't believe some of you lawyers think you are intelligent. Zed you sir, are a moron. For a black firm to hit the Vault 100, it has to be patronized by clients with deep pockets. Racism does not stop with law firms.

While there are good hearted white people in this world who focus on ability and not color, I will guarantee you that if a white client had to pick, he would go with the white guy that looks like him. See, he believe this white guy shares his background, work ethic etc. Nothing could be farther from the truth, but that's how we've been socialized.

More damaging for blacks in America is the notion that they are inferior, even if unproven in any given situation. We leave the gates with that in the back of our minds.

Hard work and ability in America does not always lead to success, especially in our field. Alot of it has to to with relationship building. Using the law school campus as a microcosm of legal society, how many times do you see, white guys hanging out with black students.

So your "pull yourself up by the bootstrap advice" is slightly useless.

And1, if you had read the article, you would have learned that "clients with deep pockets" like Walmart specifically wanted to hire blacks and other minorities and demanded that law firms be more "diverse". And these clients are white.

Sorry brother.

So she thinks that going to "top" school (Georgetown isnt a top school, sorry) and not doing well or being mediocre entitles you to a job more than someone who went to a lower-ranked school and was absolutely dominant over his/her peers? Really? The reality is that if you were mediocre at GULC, you'd have been mediocre at a lower ranked school. Just as any of the 50 students that transfer to GULC every year from lower ranked schools and always end up ranking higher on average than their regularly admitted peers. More importantly, why is someone at a lower ranked school? Even if it isnt b/c of affirmative action, why should an LSAT score (a two-hour exam) entitle you to anything?

And furthermore, the Jews who founded their own law firms had to deal with the Gentile CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies back then. Stop making up excuses.

"black staff attorneys (like its black partners and associates) hail from top law schools like Harvard, Duke and Georgetown while several white associates and partners attended schools like Catholic, Kentucky and Villanova (all ranked well below 50). Taken as a whole, the black staff attorneys' average law school rank is higher than that of white staff attorneys at the firm."

without looking at the staff attorneys, i concede that this is possible. but it's also meaningless. the staff attorneys who went to g-town and harvard graduated at the bottom of their class, while the ones who went to TTT's likely graduated cum laude. however, most of the partners and associates went to very good law schools, so naturally they appear more qualified even if their rank is lower.

comparing the law school rankings of the staff attorneys who went to TTTs to the rankings of associates and partners is like comparing apples and oranges.

Racism as the trump card... it's amazing how every bad thing that happens to blacks is because they're black. Some of them may be, but not all, and definitely not in this case.

"Affirmative action is not fairy dust for shitty applications."

But it sure is for middle-of-the-road applications. It's one thing to have your friends of color get into far, far higher-ranked law schools than you do despite having similar LSATs/grades, it's another thing to have somebody DENY that race has something to do with it.

And1 - I wouldn't have hung out with you in law school, but only because your punctuation and spelling are atrocious.

Speaking of Racism, how about Villanova over Clemson in the first round?

Bank on it.

3:02 who asked what staff attorneys do:

Most large firms have staff attorneys and the positions vary from firm to firm. At some, they do document review alongside contract attorneys (however, they are employees of the firm). At others (like mine), they are not distinguishable from associates and there is a clear path for promotion. It all depends on the firm. There was a post a month ago specifically about this topic--see if you can find it.

3:24

But Jews where viewed as incompetent and were outside of the old boys club when all the predominately Jewish firms started. So either they did "pull them selves up by the boot straps" or, once money is involved, one's personal beliefs tend to go out the door (as shown by the fact that even if lawyers are racist, as soon as clients demand more minorities, law firms run out and get as many as possible. (In fact, this suit shows the firms, even if they think the blacks they are hiring are incompetent, will hire them and use them as tokens, keeping them out of the important stuff, so that their numbers look better))

NYC to involuntary servitude

Just because you go to Harvard or Yale doesn't mean you are a good attorney. You have very well gotten in based upon something other than your merit - i.e. your race. So if you are staff attorney, it might not be racism; but just that you aren't that smart or that good. Sorry the truth hurts, but the facts don't lie.

Just because you go to Harvard or Yale doesn't mean you are a good attorney. You may have very well gotten in based upon something other than your merit - i.e. your race. So if you are staff attorney, it might not be racism; but just that you aren't that smart or that good. Sorry the truth hurts, but the facts don't lie. If you want to be treated equally, then END AFFIRMATIVE ACTION!

What people seem to forget is that while McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents (1950) ended segregation in law schools, not all law schools were segregated before then and racial discrimination was optional.

Howard Law School graduated Thurgood Marshall in 1933.

So where are the top-tier Black-founded law firms comparable to the Jewish firms? If Blacks are so discriminated against and their skills are underappreciated, why don't they start a Black-run firm and make all these clients like Walmart happy.

The 5-12 upset is SO going to be W. Ky over Drake. Mark it down.

W.Ky. to 190.

And, let's be honest - the true travesty of large law firms is the ridiculously high proportion of people of color in support staff positions (I don't count staff attorneys as support staff). There's your evidence for a black underclass, not Yolanda et al.

While staff attorney work varies from firm to firm, a consistent pattern is that staff attorneys do not have the credentials to enter as associates at that same firm. If you're good enough to get offered an associate job at another top firm, you don't take a staff attorney job.

Which is why this article is 100% bullshit. It doesn't matter where these staff attorneys went to law school. All that matters is that they clearly couldn't get hired as associates anywhere.

I'll be poster # bajillion to point out that lawschool rankings are only 1/2 of the recruitment equation. Especially at a highly competitive office like Covington & Burling DC, just attending an elite school is not enough. It would be very interesting to see the number of staff attorney's who graduated with some type of honors compared to the number of associates.

NYC to involuntary servitude

Who the hell inserted "ghetto" into the story. That's an unfortunate term to refer to African Americans. Once again, Lat proves to be an imbecil.

George Lewis Ruffin, Harvard Law School's first black graduate, entered the Law School two years after the conclusion of the Civil War.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2002/08/01_blackalumni.php

NYC to involuntary servitude

I think there is something valid here worth acknowledging.

If you go into the even more "horrible" ghetto of contract attorneys, you'll often find that the majority of those attorneys are minority lawyers.

The truth is, every firm wants the black/Hispanic/ if that lawyer/student has perfect credentials. But if they are middle of the road, everyone keeps looking... often to that really nice kid who, oh swell!, went to Princeton and played lacrosse like me... so I can overlook the fact that he wasn't on LR and is in the bottom third of his class... I mean, he went to a top 10 school, which is good enough... for him.

But not for that other kid you just looked past.

Get a clue people. The game ain't fair.

Wow...I just read her whole post. What a poorly written bunch of badly reasoned dribble. I mean, it doesn't seem like basic subject-verb agreement is that much to ask of someone who markets herself as a "writer."

Of the many questionable points of logic, I am most troubled by the conclusions she makes from her survey of blacks from her law school graduating class. Not so many left at firms? That's completely normal attrition. Only one made partner? If I were to call a sample of, say, 50 people from my graduating class 10 years after we graduated, would I be likely to find more than one made partner? Probably not. Of the one classmate she spoke to who made partner, why did he feel the need to note that the person who got behind him in supporting his quest for partner was Jewish?

Worthless, truly. I'm sorry this is getting so much attention on the blogosphere.

NYC to involuntary servitude!

So we need AA for college, law school, LAW REVIEW (See YLS, HLS, and CLS), law firms, and now partnership at the firms!?!?!

When are we supposed to look beyond race and judge people based on their skills?

3:44 - you are the "imbecil", imbecile.

2:59 with the knockout punch.

This piece reaks of the race card.

associating and profiting from racists isn't exactly prestigious.

The self-serving logic underlying every response offering little more than an ad hominem attack against this HuffPo Post may be summed up thusly:

(1) She's a bitch;

(2) If she's not a bitch, she's a black bitch;

(3) If she's not a black bitch, she's an affirmative action admit to a T14 school;

(4) If she's not an affirmative action admit to a T14 school, she's an affirmative action admit to a crappy school;

(5) If she's not an affirmative action admit to a crappy school, she graduated in the bottom 1% of her class;

(6) If she's not a bottom-1% graduate of her class, she's a liar because every BigLaw firm is bending over background to hire all of the other affirmative action admits and bottom-1% graduates (to work in the photocopy room);

(7) If she's not a liar, every one of her claims is patently false;

(8) If every one of her claims isn't patently false, so what? Look at -- deep breath for the most tired cliche of all-time -- all those black men in the NBA and NFL! Now, that's unfair!

To 3:10 - "black staff attorneys (like its black partners and associates) hail from top law schools like Harvard, Duke and Georgetown while several white associates and partners attended schools like Catholic, Kentucky and Villanova (all ranked well below 50). Taken as a whole, the black staff attorneys' average law school rank is higher than that of white staff attorneys at the firm."

This certainly not an issue unique to big law. If you are mildly observant you will notice this phenom throughout biglaw.

I would think that all of America would finally agree that merit/ability trumps race as the next president of America might very well be Black. Clearly, white people are no longer trying to keep a brother down...
Wake up and stop whimpering.

pleasantly surprised with the semming consensus that using race is a bad thing...

To 3:10 - "black staff attorneys (like its black partners and associates) hail from top law schools like Harvard, Duke and Georgetown while several white associates and partners attended schools like Catholic, Kentucky and Villanova (all ranked well below 50). Taken as a whole, the black staff attorneys' average law school rank is higher than that of white staff attorneys at the firm."

This certainly not an issue unique to big law. If you are mildly observant you will notice this phenom throughout biglaw.

I would think that all of America would finally agree that merit/ability trumps race as the next president of America might very well be Black. Clearly, white people are no longer trying to keep a brother down...
Wake up and stop whimpering.

To 3:10 - "black staff attorneys (like its black partners and associates) hail from top law schools like Harvard, Duke and Georgetown while several white associates and partners attended schools like Catholic, Kentucky and Villanova (all ranked well below 50). Taken as a whole, the black staff attorneys' average law school rank is higher than that of white staff attorneys at the firm."

This certainly not an issue unique to big law. If you are mildly observant you will notice this phenom throughout biglaw.

I would think that all of America would finally agree that merit/ability trumps race as the next president of America might very well be Black. Clearly, white people are no longer trying to keep a brother down...
Wake up and stop whimpering.

3:44,
While I think Lat is somewhat racist, the "ghetto" term comes from Ms. Young.

7 Georgetown JDs as staff attorneys. None with honors. None on journals.

2 Harvard JDs. No honors, no journals.

No JDs from Duke, but a guy who graduated from Duke in 1971 and got his JD from (snort) University of Missouri, Kansas City School of Law in 2003.

3 from NYU (one of which is an NYU LLM and Syracuse JD). No honors, no journal.

1 from Cal Berkeley. No honors, no journal.

1 from Penn. No honors, no journal.

I'm sensing a pattern.

What a half assed argument. This type of racial wolf calling just makes people turn a blind eye to real instances of racism in the workplace. Her article is racist and elitist, not Covington & Burling.

lol at 3:50. I don't know if you've actually read the responses, but some make a good case that she's comparing top of the class at lower ranked schools with possibly bottom at "top" schools...

I don't see how calling her out on her limited and biased "analysis" comes out as "she's a black bitch"

What about Georgetown JDs who aren't staff attorneys?

Mostly cum laude or magna, and mostly Georgetown Law Journal.

3:50 - you tire me. There isn't a single ad hominem attack posted here - everyone has posted criticisms of the (absurdly faulty) logic in Young's post.

3:54: As did the historically-accurate Jim Crow comparison. She's quite gifted.

Since when is GTown a "top" school? That place = no good.

Seriously 3:50, how is pointing out the flaws in her argument an ad hominem attack? If anything, the majority or responses have been anything but an ad hominem attack because they are attacking her argument and not her character.

For your future reference:
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

how many pigeons do you think it would take to lift a 150lb human off the ground?

4:08 -- Are you saying Georgetown is a TTT? What's your cutoff?

And furthermore . . . , try going to Maryland (or anyplace in the tier one law schools) for $60,000. That won't get you through the second year.

Sadly, the original complainant is whining and has a somewhat roseate view of reality. Examine the differences in numbers (LSAT and GPA) between white and black admittees to any American law school, as well as their respective law school performances, and you will find the the same disparities that Young criticizes in her original post. Blacks and whites have the same relationship as lawyers, it turns out, that they had as law students, college students, high school students, and in every other cohort of comparison all the way to the ground. The pattern Young criticizes is precisely what one would have predicted if past performance is any indication of future performance. Individuals break out of these patterns to be sure (Obama is the most obvious example but there are many better ones in academia), but it will be several generations before an entire class does (though there is good evidence that eventually will happen). Complaints like Young's are useful since they keep the issue of racism on the table for discussion, but as with most hyperbole, what gets your attention often doesn't help you think.

4:08: I'd say about 200

why are white ppl so angry about "diversity"? - if they looked at things even semi-objectively they'd notice that they have it pretty nice in this society

Villanova is NOT "well below 50" in the rankings. It is slightly below 50.

Also, I guarantee the median white LSAT at Villanova is higher than the median black LSAT at GULC. I seriously would bet my life on that. Personally I don't have a problem with AA, but her not acknowledging it in her argument about school A vs. school B is a joke.

Villanova is also in the Big 5. Suck on that GULC grads.

No. It's not a TTT, it's just not a "top" school, 4:08. I would probably say the cutoff would be Mich or Penn Law. (Penn State Law? I get confused.) Most everyone I know used GULC as a safety.

4:11, some people dream that their children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

how many pigeons do you think it would take to lift a 150lb human off the ground?

If Covington is hiring associate-level minorities as staff attorneys instead of as associates, why on earth would one agree to work there as a staff attorney instead of walking down the street to Hogan & Hartson et al. to work as an associate?

I can think of only two reasons:

1. The person wants to be a staff attorney instead of an associate for whatever reason (lower hours, increased flexibility, etc) in which case Young's story is a non-story.

2. The staff attorneys in question aren't considered viable BigLaw associate candidates by other BigLaw firms. The first reason for not being considered viable may be race-neutral characteristics, e.g., took 5 times to pass the bar / isn't a strong writer / started as an associate but did not perform well and is now a 5th year / whatever. In this case, as well, Young's story is a non-story. If, however, the reason for not being able to get an associate job isn't apparent from the face of one's resume / references (i.e., minority candidate from good school with decent grades and journal/moot court experience who is generally likable can't get a job), then it is an indictment of the legal hiring system generally and we're looking at a far, far bigger problem than just Covington.

Look, this hack openly and publicly called a well respected law firm a bunch of racists because they can't find enough qualified black people to put in their associate ranks. She should be strung up, you don't make your point by calling people racists, you make your point by going to another firm and kicking their asses. She only demeaned herself by her cowardly and lazy attack on what are very respectable people.

GULC's LSATs and GPA = Penn's.

GULC's LSATs and GPA > than most (or close to all) of t6-14.

Please explain those numbers and why GULC would be a safety? Everyone at GULC I know used Cornell and Duke as safeties.

If blacks get into schools they really shouldn't attend, odds are, they will underperform their white counterparts. That's not racist, its reality. I mean, if a white person with a 155 LSAT score gets into Yale, odds are, he will underperform against BLACK students who got in without AA.

Thus, it is no wonder how blacks could end up as staff attorneys from schools like Harvard, etc. If you're at the bottom of your class, it will be difficult to get a full-time position at a top firm. Period. This is true regardless of one's race. Bottom line is most firms would rather have top 10% from Kentucky, than bottom third from GULC (I think most would still rather have bottom of Harvard's class but I could be wrong). If there were no AA, I truly believe that while FEWER blacks might attend prestigious schools, those who did would do as well as their white counterprats.

4:17, I didn't say Cornell and Duke were "top" schools either. You've posted some stats, which are interesting, but you miss the basic point. If you get into Penn, Mich, NYU or Chi and GULC, you don't go to GULC. It's that simple. Stats don't tell the whole story.

4:10: Have you ever seen a Roseate Spoonbill? Truly beautiful birds. I don't know how many it would take to lift a 150 lb human off the ground (seems like a moot point since no one in my firm weighs that little), but I'm sure its less than the requisite number of pigeons.

The Kentucky grad only has that job because KENTUCKY IS GOING TO DOMINATE MARQUETTE IN ROUND ONE!!!

4:26 - thanks. however, I need to stick with pigeons as they are the only freely available birds in NYC. I'm just a little over 150. I need to train these pigeons to fly me around the city so I can avoid rush-hour subway and sidewalk traffic.

Can you tell that I'm doing doc review today?

Not necessarily - and I don't mean that GULC is better than Duke or Cornell - I'd say they have somewhat equal reputations. But I think many underestimate the credentials, at least, of GULC students. While most (but not al) people do chose Penn/Chicago/NYU over GULC, numbers indicate that many students do chose GULC over Michigan/UVA/Duke/Cornell.

Regardless, I am ashamed of myself for wasting my time with this, but GULC is certainly not a TTT.

3:45(3): There is no way anyone at Covington is in the bottom 1/3 and not on LR. Its a false comparison to suggest that well-qualified minorities are being overlooked in favor of unqualified whites. The whole point of most of the arguments is unqualifed minorites are being passed over in favor of well-qualified whites. You can make the argument that unqualified minorities should be given preference, I just don't find taht argument compelling.

4:17 - Again, I don't think GULC is a TTT. Also, I'm sure there are a few out there, but I don't know anyone who chose GULC over Mich or UVA. For geographic considerations, perhaps. But because GULC is a better school? I wouldn't think so.

In a simple world, if you really want to find out if an institution is racist, see where it does something against its economic interest. Where is the money bleeding out? In a capitalist economy, capital flows to its most efficient use. Period. It's not racist, sexist, or anti-semitic. The most profitable businesses, firms, etc. will be the ones operating without any touch of discrimination because discrimination is a drag on that business's profitability - it prevents capital from being allocated to where it would most effectively be employed.

I hate using the first poster's anecdote as an example, but it serves its purpose. The new Jewish law firms were successful because Jews proved that they could be successful lawyers (while participating in the civil rights movement, I would add) and add to a business's profitability & success. Capital flowed into Jewish-owned firms and businesses and other formerly restricted firms were forced to either hire Jewish attorneys or lose business to them. Firms that held onto their prejudices eventually withered out and died.

Unfortunately, it would be difficult to judge whether a firm is discriminating based solely on their profitability, because so much goes into the success of a firm (or business). In addition, the time-scales we are talking about here are not prone to solve these arguments in a matter of weeks or ever years (more like decades).

But then again, it's hard to argue with success. For a Wachtell it's easier to make a case that they don't discriminate based on race, but with a Covington it's a little harder (based on a purely capitalist model).

The way firms (or any business for that matter) are being run these days I would be surprised to find that discrimination was a driving force in utilizing its human capital (due to firms' focus on their bottom line). A more likely scenario is that partners, recruiters, HR managers, etc. subconsciously discriminate in their hiring (thereby placing a drag on their firm's profitability).

This is a major problem - not ony for individual firms but for the economy as a whole, and serves as a foundation for the argument why diversity in the workplace is important.

OK, but I would think that attorneys with these (good if not great) credentials would be able to be hired as associates at a Biglaw firm slightly further down the Vault rankings - a lot of those firms would be perfectly happy to have a Harvard grad, even if s/he was in the bottom 1/3. Are these staff attorneys making the decision to sacrifice the money/prestige of an associate position for a better lifestyle, are they making the decision to sacrifice an associate position further down vault for a (perceived) chance of getting a more prestigous associate position later on, or have they really been turned down from, say, a V80 firm that woiuld normally be panting over ANY Harvard grad? If its the latter, than its blatently racism, if its either of the former...

There are LOTS of applicants that choose GULC over Penn, Michigan, Cornell, Duke, and, dare I say, even Chicago (less so UVA). It has access to a larger, more talented, and more diverse (get it?) pool of instructors/professors than any other school in the country, and its connections, especially in DC, run very, very deep. If you want to work in this town and you're choosing between GULC and Penn (even the real Penn), it's a no-brainer.

GULC = TTT?

First of all, I think it's kind of weird that she calls out the attorneys at the firm who happen to have graduated from a non-elite law school. Who knows what they had on their res - might be brilliant for all we know.

Second, she doesn't do herself any favors by misrepresenting the rank of Villanova and Kentucky, saying they're "well below" the top 50, when in fact they're both ranked 60. Kind of makes me think she's not an objective observer and is out to get Covington regardless of what the reality of the firm's hiring process is.

How much should I read into Covington's statement that they provide "competitive compensation and benefits, *which we will likely further enhance in the near future.*"? Covington to $190K?????????

4:24,
I always thought that about AA and law school but no one really latches on to that. For 90% of students, law school is simply an entrance exam for getting that first job. While I think AA is needed at the undergraduate level (for the traditional reasons of remedying recent discrimination), at the law school level it is actually counterproductive. Letting in 20% of otherwise unqualified law students to a school like Georgetown Law benefits the 80% majority, who got in purely on test scores and grades, the most. With the mandatory curve, the AA students become cannon fodder for the 80% majority.

As a GULC 3L, it came down to GULC and Penn, and I chose GULC. My thoughts:

First, I'd say I have some regrets, although I probably would have made the same decision. I think Penn has an edge in hiring both in DC and New York, but not one that is overwhelming. Although I am fine with the firm I am going to, I MAY have had a better edge with penn in hindsight.

That said, I have actaully enjoyed my 3 years here - being a law student in DC is great, and there are going to be many GULC alum around town in the future.

Also, like another poster said, there are a lot of GULC students who chose GULC over the likes of Michigan, Duke, Cornell and Penn -although I would say its primarily because of location - and I think the lsat/gpa numbers probably do back this up. Of course, there are probably people who chose Vandy and Texas over GULC (and the other schools) for the same reason.

4:14(1) - that was great.

3:01(2) - speak for yourself

why thank you, 5:05.

We had a black summer associate from Harvard last year at my BIGLAW firm. He was horrible - he thought he was "entitled" to an offer and had generally a bad attitude about work. His skills at writing were also poor. His performance reviews were CONSISTENTLY bad (i.e. DO NOT HIRE) and yet the firm made him an offer (to the surprise of EVERYONE in our department). Two other white summer associates were non-offered, and were similarly qualified with better attitudes. I guess my point is that if these staff attorneys believed they were "dinged" because they were black, they need to keep it in context because many firms will consider their race as a key selling point in hiring them. They just need to work hard, PERFORM and have a good attitude. That isn't enough to make it as a partner in many firms today, but if you are black and have those traits, then you're sitting in a much better position. It's not fair, it's just life.

What do you regret, 5:03? GULC has a rep of being a lawyer factory and it's location is questionable. That said, it's rare to run into people who hated it, unlike alums of Chi or Col. It sounds like you'd rather have gone to Penn in retrospect. What about UVa or Duke? They seem to have strong DC recruiting.

5:00 - AA is also counterproductive at undergrad level, and 4:24's rationale re: law school performance applies equally to undergrad performance. Years ago, a study tracked minority students admitted under AA programs and noted that most failed to maintain average standing, thereby weakening their job prospects post-grad. Conclusion? AA admission did more harm than good inasmuch as AA students (many who lacked solid grounding in basic skills such as grammar and expository writing) had to compete against better educated non-minority students. Proceeding to next level of law school only perpetuates/exacerbates the problems.

Georgetown over UVA? Seriously? Why would anyone make that decision, absent a scholarship? I don't buy it.

To 4:05/4:08--

First things first: In my experience, those whose first inclination when confronted with an argument to which they do not have an intelligent response is to dive for their copy of Webster's and quote definitions. Cute. Derivative, but cute.

But, yes, this thread has had more than its fair share of illogical statements grounded in supposition and contradiction rather than fact. So many have protested that Ms. Young's extrapolation of her brief experience at C&B to support her claim of racism in the legal community is without merit. And, yet, so many have extrapolated their encountered with the one of two blacks whose academic records they have never examined to proclaim that affirmative action explains solely the success of most blacks in BigLaw. Lovely.

How exactly do so many here know that black staff attorneys graduated at the bottom of the their class, let alone the bottom 1%? Which top schools rank the entire class? Georgetown certainly doesn't. Not Yale. Not Penn. Forget Harvard. How then are folks so confident than the top 1% Villanova grad is smarter or more qualified or will make a better lawyer than this mythical bottom 1% Harvard grad who must be black?

Firms are bending over backwards to hire blacks? Even unqualified ones? Really? Name one. Please, stand by the courage of your convictions and name one. Then explain the paucity of blacks in BigLaw in light of this alleged hiring gymnastics.

The NBA? The NFL? Good grief, will someone please demonstrate their avowed brillance to deliver me from this trite and false analogy? How do the Lakers judge college players for the upcoming draft? By watching them do the same exact thing they'll do in the pros -- shoot the ball, dribble the ball, steal the ball. Easy to watch, easy to quantify, easy to understand. LSATs as a predictor for a brillant lawyer? Write many bluebook exams lately? That A in Torts been serving you well on a practical level? Please. They don't call it the "level playing field" for nothing.

Georgetown a TTT? Stop. You sound foolish.

Bottom line: All too many on this thread presumed Ms. Young graduated at the bottom of her class, presumed that she was an affirmative action admit, and presume that their black colleagues are unqualified to hold their jobs. All without basis.

Now, go look up "disingenuous."

5:24, (1) you sound like a douche; (2) kind of ironic that you ask the reader to look up disingenuous when your treatment of the prior posts' arguments is itself disingenuous.

But getting back to my first point - you sound uber douchey.

Umm, nobody said that she was the bottom 1% at GULC. One person gave a hypo that top 1% at Villanova is better than bottom 1% at GULC.

Everybody said that the class rank of the black Harvard/Duke/Georgetown staff attorneys (no honors) are probably lower than the Villanova or Kentucky graduates with honors and circuit clerkships.

5:24/3:50 - while everyone is reading your absurdly long post, go out and collect some change you can buy yourself a clue. There's over 100 posts on this thread, *most* of which are from intelligent people who are able to pick out plain, obvious flaws in Young's argument with little effort. Then there's you, writing pages of bullshit and failing to convince anyone.

Well said, 5:24.

5:24/3:50 - while everyone is reading your absurdly long post, go out and collect some change so you can buy yourself a clue. There's over 100 posts on this thread, *most* of which are from intelligent people who are able to pick out plain, obvious flaws in Young's argument with little effort. Then there's you, writing pages of bullshit and failing to convince anyone.

5:18 -

I should clarify. I do not regret going to GULC, and as I said, I would probably make the same decision again.

I think that job prospects from Penn are slightly better - slightly. But in the end, I am happy with my DC V50 job, and there were other Penn summers, so I don't know if that would have changed things. My Penn friends seem to like Penn a lot - so I guess my decision would have been tougher in hindsight but I still would have chosen GULC.

For wierd reasons, I applied to Duke but not UVA. I turned down Duke, and I have 0 regrets (Not to hate on Duke, I just didn't want to live in NC). If I had applied to UVA, it would have been tough, but I wanted a city.

As for life at GULC, I may be biased becuase I am from the D.C. area and like it, but I have very much enjoyed my experience here. The professors and class selection are top-notch, and there are always a million law-related things one could do on a daily basis here. Many of my friends are law-clerks part time and make some extra money with it. Also, the students here seem to be more tolerable than at other schools - although I don't have too much to base that on besides what others say about their law schools. So all in all, very good experience.

5:24 = staff attorney at Covington

Law firm is confronted with two candidates:
1. GULC graduate with no honors and no journal
2. Once-in-a-decade Villanova graduate with honors, journal experience, and prestigious circuit clerkship

Given candidate #2's record of presumably hard work, law firm hires candidate #2 as an associate and candidate #1 as staff attorney.

But wait! Candidate #1 is black and Candidate #2 is white. Law firm must be racist.

What an arrogant, deluded, ignorant individual.

She would have NEVER been accepted to Georgetown had she been white. Same with many other African Americans at top law schools. A large majority have college GPAs and LSAT scores that would have put them at much lower ranked law schools had they been white. So if she (and others like her) failed to obtain Biglaw associate positions because they didn't have the law school grades/honors, etc., that's a just result - regardless that she went to a highly ranked school. What does she think her white classmates at Georgetown who had her grades/class ranking are doing? Most likely they're also working as staff attorneys (if they're lucky), or as solos, or at small firms.

Racism? No way. AA gets some of them in the door at top schools, but AA doesn't automatically extend to getting you a Biglaw associate job. Although Biglaw is bending over backwards to hire minorities, so minorities with OK credentials can still get associate positions that they wouldnt be considered for if they were white.

If Young can't get an associate position, she knows exactly why - bottom of the class at Georgetown won't get you into biglaw even if she's a minority. Its not racist for the firm to hire students at the top of their class from lower ranked schools - its common sense - it doesn't matter what color they are.

You know why people here are assuming Young was at the bottom of her class? Because she doesn't provide any details about her rank or GPA. If she had a 4.0 from Georgetown and was passed over for an associate position by a white student from a lower ranked school (say Catholic, Villanova, or Kentucky) with a 3.0, she sure would have mentioned that in her rantings.

5:17: "We had a black summer associate from Harvard last year at my BIGLAW firm. He was horrible - he thought he was "entitled" to an offer and had generally a bad attitude about work." Could say same thing for white HLS schmuck from my 1st yr class (he didn't last the year).

However, agree with you re: race being as a key selling point; it's factor which tips the scale one way or another, for better or for worse. As lawyers, we're trained to see every possible side. So how then can some people blame race for negatives things, but not give it credit for the positive ones???

One correction, my friend from Villanova Law at Covington was summa cum laude (a few people a year) in law school, not magna as mentioned in the comments above.

W&L magna
VLS summa
Law review editor with note published
4th Circuit Clerk (Widener, a W&L alum.)

Somehow I think our african american friend should post her grades at GULC before she casts any stones. Clearly, she was not a clerk, let alone a circuit clerk.

The entitlement of the "T14" graduates who expect top jobs with bottom of the barrel grades is almost as bad as her rant against the Villanova and U. Maryland law grads (who, I can assure you, were at the very top of their class).

5:24: I'm not presuming that the bottom 1% of the class at Harvard is black or unintelligent. I am, however, arguing that AA admits to Harvard and the like have never had their feet put to the fire: they got into a top law school with lower LSATS/grades, they attended a law school where grades/rank either don't exist or don't matter, they have an edge getting onto Law Review/Moot Court, they're heavily courted by large law firms come on-campus interviewing time and clerkship time. The only time these people are truly tested is the bar exam - and we know how those stats go.

This absolutely sucks for minority students who would've gotten into a top school regardless of race. I don't know many people like that, though, I have to admit.

The minority law students who would have gotten into their school without affirmative action should be complaining loudly that their merits are being cheapened by AA. They should insist that AA debases their credentials.

But with the exception of Clarence Thomas being against affirmative action, the silence is deafening.

"If she had a 4.0 from Georgetown and was passed over for an associate position by a white student from a lower ranked school (say Catholic, Villanova, or Kentucky) with a 3.0, she sure would have mentioned that in her rantings."

I was about to write the same thing but 5:35 beat me to it. I dare someone to argue this statement!

5:32 - thanks for your response. Why no UVa? Probably my top choice. Also a DC native, so it'll be between GULC, Penn, UVa and Duke.

I'm white & angry!! GRRRRRR

"2. Once-in-a-decade Villanova graduate with honors, journal experience, and prestigious circuit clerkship."

You would be suprised that this is more like two or three a year, rather than once in a decade.

On average, Villanova has two or three circuit clerks a year. While most of them stay in the Philadelphia area, there are other Villanova people at school snobby places like Wilmer and Davis Polk.

Villanova is not at the level of Penn, actually far from it, but does recruit (with scholarship money) and churn out some top-quality students every year. They just do not appear in the big name DC and NY firms because most of them choose Philadelphia or Wilmington instead.

Georgetown over UVA? Seriously? Why would anyone make that decision, absent a scholarship? I don't buy it.

ummm because the insecure prestige whores base their decisions solely upon the rankings and UVA is ranked higher..

How about the white student who borrows $120,000 to attend Georgetown only to earn half that of the black associate who paid $60,000 to attend the University of Maryland?

For me, I didn't apply to UVA just because at the time I was dead set on a city (but applied to Duke because I thought I definitely had the numbers for it).

Any of those four schools would be great - you can't go wrong. Its really about where you would like to live and what type of school you want to go to. Good luck.

5:45, my apologies. But my point still stands.

While I agree with some of the posts pointing out the problematic nature of affirmative action, i.e placing students in schools they are under-qualified for and creating the mentality that ANY minority lawyer got to where he or she is through AA, it is worth considering that the success of AA may lie in future generations.

Children will be benefited by the AA granted their parents in the form of better primary and secondary schools, a more stable upbringing, less poverty etc., enabling the jettison of the AA that most posters here complain about.

For example, blacks from the West Indies actually perform BETTER on standardized tests than their white counterparts,* suggesting that societal forces are the main inhibitor of African-American success. If some of those societal factors can be alleviated through AA, it seems reasonable that future generations of black students will have no need for the program.

Consider viewing AA as a flawed but workable means to the end of a racially level playing field of ubiquitous meritocracy.

*http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1077-3711(199621)11%3C6%3ACBSASA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5

I also chose GULC over Duke, Virginia, NYU, Columbia, Northwestern, and others. But in fairness, I did so primarily based on geography and the school's huge base of great professors. I did very well, worked at a Vault 5 firm and did a clerkship. The only time I've ever thought of going to GULC as a decision I might change is now that I'm thinking about transitioning to academia. I definitely used Duke as a safety school and my experience with Duke law grads (and Cornell) has left me unimpressed by both. I would stack the top 10-20 in my GULC class against the same at practically any "top" school, except possibly Yale. And why has no one slammed Northwestern, which I think is vastly inferior to GULC?

"Children will be benefited by the AA granted their parents in the form of better primary and secondary schools, a more stable upbringing, less poverty etc., enabling the jettison of the AA that most posters here complain about."

Really? Because I don't buy that. I think that AA is a way for rich white people to feel good about bringing a few minorities (who would've been just fine anyway) into the fold without actually dealing with the enormous racial underclass in this country. I think a black kid who gets into HLS would've gotten into, say, Suffolk without AA wasn't under the poverty line to begin with.

More and more ad dollars for Lat. Expect Lat to keep inciting racial hatred so he can get rich. Reading the comments, I couldn't tell whether this is xoxo or ATL. Time to head over to WSJ's Law Blog where they have real news.

5:47. Affirmative action was granted 30-40 years ago. Their children are adults now. When are you going to jettison AA?

Rational AA,

You are a blithering idiot. I'd like to see some real evidence for that claim about blacks from the West Indies, and anyone who thinks that "societal forces are the main inhibitor of African-American success" is either a moron or someone making a power grab by playing the race card.

Do we know if most of the Covington staff attorneys wanted to be associates? Maybe many of them were given the opportunity to be associates but chose to be staff attorneys for personal reasons. (Maybe staff attorneys have better, more predictable hours at covington.) The different racial ratios would still need an explanation, but that explanation wouldn't be that covington was blatantly discriminating.
Just saying, I think we need to know more before we can judge the situation. Both sides of the argument should consider this.

Dear 5:34:

I agree with your point. However, there are all too many firms in the world who overlook the top student at Villanova for the middle of the pack or lower at a place like Penn law, regardless of race.

Having attended Penn law (and having done very well) while living near Villanova, I was able to see that the difference in quality between the students at the two schools is no where near the placement gap. This I cannot understand.

I have friends who graduated with a 3.5 from Villanova law who are working as contract attorneys, while I have friends who, based on their grades, had to be in the bottom third at Penn who are working at the top firms in Philly and even V30 firms in New York: firms that do not even interview someone with "only" a 3.5 at Villanova (which has a 3.0 curve).

I can only conclude that law firms would much rather have the name of the law school on their website than have the quality of lawyer in their offices.

In my firm, the best junior associates tend to be the top of the class at whatever law school, while the worst tend to be those who merely "attended" the best law schools.

When white males were the only ones in law school, anyone could make partner by billing 1400 hours per year and having no clients. Once women were admitted into law school, the billables went up considerably. Once minorities were admitted into law school, billable hours became almost irrelevant (and business generation became the criteria for partnership). The rules keep changing so that white males always keep the equity partnerships.

5:55--

Are you suggesting a more class-based AA program as opposed to a race-based one? If so, I generally agree. I was merely pointing out that AA has potential utility, not that class should be ignored and race focused on myopically.

As to "dealing with the enormous racial underclass in this country," that is a problem to complicated for this message board.

When white males were the only ones in law school, anyone could make partner by billing 1400 hours per year and having no clients. Once women were admitted into law school, the billables went up considerably. Once minorities were admitted into law school, billable hours became almost irrelevant (and business generation became the criteria for partnership). The rules keep changing so that white males always keep the equity partnerships.

When white males were the only ones in law school, anyone could make partner by billing 1400 hours per year and having no clients. Once women were admitted into law school, the billables went up considerably. Once minorities were admitted into law school, billable hours became almost irrelevant (and business generation became the criteria for partnership). The rules keep changing so that white males always keep the equity partnerships.

5:42, silence is deafening probably because we have more important things to do and talk about. Personally, I'm fully confident in my abilities and know that AA could never cheapen my merits or debase my credentials. Why? Because my colleagues know that I accomplished everything on merit. I disavow minority status because I see it as a crutch and sometimes convenient excuse for the crap that life tends to throw at all of all. Sloppy allegations like those in Young's HuffPo post only undermines her position - another indication of her weak reasoning skills.

The hardest law schools to get into:

1 Yale University 6.8%
2 Stanford University 8.7%
3 U. of California-Berkeley 11%
4 Harvard University 12.6%

GULC = rank 25 (21.5%)

yay--a comment cluster fuck!!

6:06, try billing 1400 hours without computers and email. You spend a lot of unbillable time waiting for clients to mail back to you.

5:55--

Are you suggesting a more class-based as opposed to race-based form of AA? If so, I generally agree with you. I was merely pointing out that AA has potentially utility and at least makes an effort to deal with the serious problems of the "the enormous racial underclass in this country." I would say, tentatively, that race can act as a proxy for class as you seem to grant in referring to a "racial underclass," although I admit that the shafting of poor whites by AA programs is unfortunate.

c&b = racist;
obama = racist;
by the transitive property, obama will be working as a staff attorney at c&b after next november's election.

6:08 - do you really think Berkley is harder to get into than Harvard?

According to "student" quality based on LSATs, GULC is ranked 7th.
http://www.leiterrankings.com/students/2007student_quality.shtmlb

5:57--

If you paid more attention you would notice the link that I provided in support of my statement. Also, I appreciate the pointless ad hominem attack--it really adds to the discussion.

I've learned through hard experience that it is better to have a top 20% graduate from a mediocre school than a bottom half graduate from a "top" school. Why? I don't know how they got into their school - it could have been race, gender or legacy. But class rank can't be faked. It's still the best indicator for success that I've found.

Don't be offended by the anti-AA comments - be offended by an AA system that cheapens your degree and your worth to others. You will always be seen by your peers as a second-tier candidate until and unless AA is eliminated.

5:53 - you chose GULC for georgraphical reasons, right? I mean, no one turns down NYU or Col for GULC unless there's a non-law school related issue. I wouldn't even turn down UVa for GULC. And agreed, NW, Duke and Cornell are pretty blase.

6:22 -- How dumb can you be? If your pool is dumb, it doesn't matter if you're in the top 20% of that dumb pool. You're still TTT.

6:11: I also see the golden ring - being an associate at a large law firm - as work that is ultimately hypocritical if you're seeking to eradicate an underclass.

Um, 2:59, "T&E" = Trusts & Estates, not exactly an obscure piece of legal jargon.

5:57--

Also, if societal forces don't play some role in the rampant poverty and criminality present in predominately black communities, then what causes the discrepancy b/w these communities and those that are mostly white? I am not saying that societal forces account for everything, just that they play a role. Moreover, are you playing the inferiority card? B/c that theory has been discounted again and again.*

*See Guns, Germs and Steel for details

[quote]
The hardest law schools to get into:

1 Yale University 6.8%
2 Stanford University 8.7%
3 U. of California-Berkeley 11%
4 Harvard University 12.6%

GULC = rank 25 (21.5%)
[/quote]

I don't know how you came up with this list, but some second and third tier law schools are very hard to get into if you go just by the percentage of applicants that get accepted. Some state schools, especially those with part time programs, often have several thousand applicants for only a couple hundred spots which would result in an acceptance ratio of around 5% or even less.

6:06, get some historical perspective and maybe someone will listen to you (not). Rules keep changing b/c times, client demands, and law firm as a business keep changing. Shame though, b/c eons ago, attorneys stayed with firms for entire careers and enjoyed job security. Could use some of that right about now.

Also, believe that less than 10 yrs ago, a BigLaw first yr's salary was $90,000. Should we go back to that??

Why is anyone surprised to find this in a country that invited a terrorist attack on 9-11, imported drugs to enslave generations of black citizens, and invented HIV to kill people of color? God damn America!

This is borderline retarded. They're "segregating" by objective factors like grades and strength of school. So effing what if fewer blacks have the grades and school needed to become associates?

Show me that you have the same grade/school combination as the associates, AND THEN I'll feel outraged.

"Show me that you have the same grade/school combination as the associates, AND THEN I'll feel outraged."

I can show you plenty of white staff attorneys who have the same school/grades as black associates. Wait, that was not what you were asking for . . . .

GULC = Duke = Cornell = Northwestern = prestigious but not elite

Funny how she didn't tell us her grades.

Bottom half at GULC doesn't get biglaw.

Lat, can you challenge her to tell us her grades?

If she's in the bottom half, I swear to god...What makes her think she's entitled without the credentials? Does she think she should get hired over a white person with a better grades/school combo than her? Doesn't she realize biglaw associate positions are in high demand and many, many people don't get them?

I'm sooo effing tired of black people crying racism when they don't get what they want.

She needs to show us her grades.

Moreover, law schools should disclose the statistics of their incoming and graduating classes broken down by race. Only once the public is made aware of the amount of a "boost" AA provides will the cries for its abolition be loud enough to be heard.

Same should be done for law firm associate [and staff attorney] hires.

7:58--those statistics are available in the Michigan Law School affirmative action case, Grutter v. Bollinger. Note that Michigan also has affirmitative action for law review.

Based on her book deal and subsequent non-legal career pursuits, it would appear that the author was not interested in pursuing an associate position (or even a legal career) right out of law school. In my experience, most firms look skeptically on applicants for associate positions who have significant non-legal gaps in their resume or whose interests or work experience suggest that they view law firm work as a fall-back or as a means of paying the bills while they pursue a second career. Not surprisingly, sophisticated firms view associate training as an investment and do not want to hire people who will just leave after a year or two to pursue other interests.

That is not a universal rule, though. In fact, I know of one former Covington summer associate and associate who was a published, award-winning author prior to joining the firm. That associate left after a few years to take an academic position teaching creative writing. Similarly, another former summer associate recently returned to the firm as a full-time associate after initially pursuing a career with McKinsey. They also both happen to be Harvard Law graduates and minorities....

I'm clearly late to this thread, but I skimmed the comments and was surprised that while I saw countless posts discussing her comment that C&B hired a few associates from lower ranked schools while hiring minorities from higher ranked schools as staff attorneys, none addressed the fundamental absurdity with this argument.

Forget class rank, intellect, clerkships, year they graduated and every other rational reason to hire someone from a lower ranked school over someone from a T-14 school.

You can't argue they hired these people instead of minorities from T-14 schools unless you assume the firm turned away no white students from T-14 schools. C&B rejected countless white top students at top schools, let alone mediocre and weaker students at top schools in favor of a few white candidates at lower schools.

Personally, that she could somehow look at a few white candidates from lower schools and conclude they were given the jobs over black candidates from higher schools while ignoring all the white candidates from top schools who were also rejected suggests she feels incredibly entitled and when she doesn't get what she wants, even if she doesn't deserve it, she concludes others must be racist.

To clarify my last sentence, I did not mean to suggest that these two individuals were hired because they were minorities -- rather the opposite. In my experience, Covington hires individuals based on talent, not race. These examples were meant to show that when a qualified applicant comes along, the firm will grab that person regardless of race or whether they fit the "typical" law firm candidate profile.

It also seems that if she was such a brilliant and talented attorney, she would not have been a contract attorney for long. Firms aren't so stupid as to allow a great minority attorney leave to bolster the ranks of a competing firm. Defective candidate....

Villanova to Sweet Sixteen!

It also seems that if she was such a brilliant and talented attorney, she would not have been a contract attorney for long. Firms aren't so stupid as to allow a great minority attorney leave to bolster the ranks of a competing firm. Defective candidate....

6:09, not a comment clusterf&*$ until it hits 200, didn't you know? (Since this post is #192, we're getting there.)

God Damn America!
Yes we Can!!!
Audacity of Hope!!

Georgetown to Final Four!

This discussion highlights exactly why Barrack cannot win.

What really irks me is that we are often forced to apologize when we even imply that a person would not have gotten what they got because they are black. Isn't that the whole point of affirmative action????? (Truth is not even a defense - If Obama were a white politician with less than 3 years of experience in federal office and no executive leadership experience to speak of, he WOULD NOT be seriously considered for President by a major party - he is only considered because he is polished, well educated and part black). I'd love to know if he checked the box on his college/law school applications. Why doesn't someone in the media ask him that????

Lat???

"Similarly no modern law school can claim ignorance of the poor performance of blacks, relatively speaking, on the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT). Nevertheless, law schools [*370] continue to use the test and then attempt to "correct" for black underperformance by using racial discrimination in admissions so as to obtain their aesthetic student body. The Law School's continued adherence to measures [**2361] it knows produce racially skewed results is not entitled to deference by this Court. See Part IV, supra. The Law School itself admits that the test is imperfect, as it must, given that it regularly admits students who score at or below [***359] 150 (the national median) on the test. See App. 156-203 (showing that, between 1995 and 2000, the Law School admitted 37 students--27 of whom were black; 31 of whom were "underrepresented minorities"--with LSAT scores of 150 or lower). And the Law School's amici cannot seem to agree on the fundamental question whether the test itself is useful. Compare Brief for Law School Admission Council as Amicus Curiae 12 ("LSAT scores . . . are an effective predictor of students' performance in law school") with Brief for Harvard Black Law Students Association et al. as Amici Curiae 27 ("Whether [the LSAT] measures objective merit . . . is certainly questionable"). " Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306

As an initial matter, I will concede that the author lost most of her credibility through her poor writing. I noticed all of her errors when I first read the article yesterday (before it hit the law blogs).

However, she raises several important issues that warrant further scrutiny. These issues are not limited to Covington, and are probably common to most BigLaw firms with staff attys.

The biggest bone of contention among staff attorneys is the fact that we are often treated like second-class citizens in the firm. This treatment almost never derives from the associates and partners that we work for. Instead, it derives from office-wide policies.

For example, the author asserts that Covington does not provide paid maternity leave to staff attys while granting this benefit to associates. At my firm, associates are allowed to wear jeans, while staff attorneys are held to a higher dress code. Associates usually get a private furnished office with a window, while the staff attys are crammed into interior rooms with folding tables. Associates have lavish bios on the web sites while staff attys are lucky if their names are even mentioned. Other firms disinvite staff attorneys to various firm events.

It is the little things like this that convey the message that the firms do not really want us around. This attitude by the firm itself (not the associates and partners that supervise us) is what leads to disgruntled employees, which then manifests itself in these types of articles.

Is it really asking too much for Covington to provide equal benefits for all of its employees? Will any of these firms go bust if they have to buy real desks for their staff attorneys, even if they are placed in windowless rooms?

Middle eastern people face discrimination and get no affirmative action.

% admission rate does not tell you which schools are harder to get into, unless the exact same (statistically) group of people applied to each of the schools. Most likely, Berkeley had a ton of average Cali folks applying, so their admissions % is necessarily low.

Berkeley is very selective. They look beyond numbers.

"These issues are not limited to Covington, and are probably common to most BigLaw firms with staff attys. "< This sentence contains a comma splice. When you don't have a new subject and verb in the second half of that sentence, it is erroneous to use a comma.

9:37, are you talking about staff attorneys (presumably permanent employees of the firm) or contract attorneys (the firm hires them from local businesses which pay their salaries)? If the latter, I don't think the firm decides their maternity leave policies, etc. My firm doesn't have the former, so I don't really know how that all works out.

jeez, the woman associate from Villanova also has an MBA

I think this says it all. Summary of "A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools"

K-12 education anyone?

"The study found a stark achievement gap between blacks and whites throughout the nation's law schools. CLOSE TO HALF of the black law students ended up in the bottom TENTH of their class. African-Americans were more than twice as likely as whites to drop out -- and more than six times as likely to fail state bar exams after multiple tries.

"Prof. Sander argues that the reason for this outcome stems from a 'mismatch' between the credentials of the black students and the institutions they attend. Because they have weaker credentials, he says, the students achieve lower grades. And since grades are strongly correlated to success on the bar exam, he argues, these students failed the bar in higher numbers...there is a 'cascade effect' on every tier of law school, from Harvard and Yale down the ranks, ensuring that, at each level, blacks perform worse and are less likely to become lawyers.

i'm white and all for affirmative action in undergrad and law school admission.

i'm curious about one thing, though, that has not discussed. is it true that sen. obama got into harvard law based on him being arab? his middle name hussein.

to 10:29 - I was talking about staff attys that are permanent employees of the firm. The author of the article alleges that staff attys did not receive paid maternity leave, jury duty, etc.

to 10:17 - Thanks for pointing out my comma splice. However, that is a lesser offense than multiple misspelled words or misuse of words (counsel vs. council). Also, I think everyone (or at least most people) agree that blog comments do not warrant the same level of scrutiny as an actual article written by someone that received a six figure advance to write a book.

Gotta love how she constructively disses Catholic...whose dean is an AA woman. I know...two quotas right?

i'm white and all for affirmative action in undergrad and law school admission.

i'm curious about one thing, though, that has not discussed. is it true that sen. obama got into harvard law based on him being arab? his middle name hussein.

i'm white and all for affirmative action in undergrad and law school admission.

i'm curious about one thing, though, that has not discussed. is it true that sen. obama got into harvard law based on him being arab? his middle name hussein.

MANY STAFF ATTORNEYS ARE SUCCESSFUL...

* In May 2001, I graduted w/ honors from Univ. of Baltimore Law.
* In July 2001, I passed the NY Bar Exam (1st try)
* From Aug. 2001 - July 2003, I worked as a contract attorney at a V5 firm in NYC.
* In July 2003, I was hired as a staff attorney for a V10 firm in NYC.
* Since May 2005, I have been working as a SUPERVISORY staff attorney with the same V10 firm.

As a SUPERVISORY staff attorney, I have (1) received many raises, (2) earned many merit-based bonuses, (3) and, this past year made close to $120k. Notably, I also only have an 1,900 billable hr. requirement (associates have a 2,000 hour requirement). In summation, I would not give up this gig for anything. I supervise and perform meaningful work--more so than many associates.

11:30:

I just looked at this clusterf*%k and skimmed your nonsense. Please tell me you are joking.

Honors from B-more? Passed the bar exam on your first try? "Supervisory staff attorney"? I heard that Wachtell is hiring and looking for someone with just your credentials... tell them that Lat suggested you apply for the job; they'll probably give you a hefty signing bonus! Better yet-- go work for Bear Stearns.

I am a 1st year associate at WilmerHale. Its almost midnight, and I'm still sitting in my office doing doc review. Can someone hook me up with a contract-attorney-turned-"SUPERVISORY staff attorney" position.

SUPERVISORY ATTORNEYS TO $1.90 (per hour)!

I want to comment on the affirmative action debate, but feel compelled to respond to the "STAFF ATTORNEYS ARE OFTEN THE BEST ATTORNEYS" comment.

I agree that staff attorneys CAN BE the smartest attorney in the room. But this is only when they are compared to contract attorneys (who, by definition, can't pass the bar). However, staff attorneys are not as smart as (1) your average donkey, (2) my left nut, or (3) the semi-retarded guy who works in the OMM-DC mailroom.

Although it may no longer be relevant at this point, I should state for the record that the Michigan Law Review does not use affirmative action as a part of its selection procedures.

Yolanda Young should be ashamed. She used specious reasoning to slander a well-respected law firm. For a writer or a lawyer, her writing isn't very good, and if you're a staff attorney, your writing better be flawless if you want to become an associate. Her video blogs reveal that she's not a great or smooth speaker either. Bottom line -- I can't believe that people are paying so much attention to her.

And to the commenter who said the real travesty was the high percentage of minorities in support staff positions, get a life. It has little or nothing to do with skin color. If you're talking about DC, well, DC is the chocolate city as George Clinton said, and as a result a lot of government workers and support staff in white shoe law firms are black. Those jobs are good honest jobs. What is wrong with that? In NYC where I am, the secretarial and word processing staffs include a high percentage of whites of many backgrounds. It has nothing to do with skin color or background. If you're trying to use the allegedly high percentage of minorities in support staff positions to argue that there are too few minorities in the associate and partner ranks, then clearly you have not had enough experience in the recruiting process. Many firms, particularly in competitive legal markets, find it tough to find qualified candidates. We see a lot of milquetoast underqualified applicants. We search far and wide to find good talent and it is hard hard hard.

Yolanda Young had her foot in the door at Covington and if she had kicked ass and taken names, then people would have noticed and she probably could have become an associate and gone on from there. But the proof is in the pudding, she's not a great writer or speaker, so no wonder that she didn't rise above the position of staff attorney.

There are some valid arguments being made against affirmative action, but there seems to be a lot of resentment against black attorneys with AA being an excuse to vent some fucked up racial attitudes. Many posters assume that every black attorney they meet is unqualified and cannot practice law as well as their white counterparts.
What's scary for a black associate reading this is that they have to consider how many of these anti AA posters are carrying these attitudes with them in the work place. It's hard to imagine that many of you posters are able to leave your biases at home. An unforgiving lawyer in a supervisory position can always find a mistake in a young lawyer's work. With rare exception no young lawyer comes into practice knowing all the ins and outs of their area of law. They need mentoring. Mentoring is not great for most associates in Biglaw, but after reading the openly hostile comments about black lawyers on this thread, it's fair to say that mentorship is especially shitty for blacks in large law firms.
It seems that when many of you see a black person in a large law firm or in an Ivy league school, you think they have stolen the spot of someone more deserving - usually someone white.
You can't seriously expect that attitude doesn't translate into a bias against blacks in the workplace. I hope that AA ends so that there's one less excuse for closet racists to dress up their racism. For now I'll have to wonder which one of my coworkers thinks I took my spot in Biglaw from a white lawyer.

10:15 - Berkeley and other UC schools "look beyond the numbers" so that they can admit more minorities. After Prop 9, they weren't allowed to practice blatant discrimination (traditional affirmative action), so they redesigned the process to allow for more indirect discrimination by looking heavily into essays, "personal background" and other soft factors. Of course they say these are race-neutral factors, but both the intent and result of the policies is race-based.

In terms of Berkeley's competitiveness in general, I'm not going to argue rankings and numbers but I think most people would agree that 6:08's list of the four toughest schools - Harvard, Stanford, Yale & Berkeley - looks like that game on Sesame Street ("which one doesn't belong").

anon @ 1:11 - your read of the comments here says a lot more about you than it does about the posters. Reread what others have written - this conversation hasn't been about hostility towards black lawyers. It has been about:
- the specious arguments raised in Young's blog post
- the detrimental effects of AA in law firm hiring and law school admission
- the empirical evidence that black students tend not to perform as well in law school as their white counterparts and the possible causes therein
- whether and to what extent disparities between staff attorneys and associates exist

It's really pretty sad that people can't criticize a piece written by a black woman without being called racist. Because...her work couldn't garner criticism on its own merits? That, my friend, is a pretty fucked up racist attitude.

11:30 - so...you are crowing about 1900 billables for $120k, when your class year associate counterparts are getting $250k for an additional 100 hours, pre-bonus? Hey man, whatever gets you to sleep at night.

1:35--

Your cherry picked comments miss 1:11's point that there is pent up frustration over AA reflected in this thread that is uncomfortably close to racial animus.

Imagine reading this thread as a black attorney or law student and noticing that numerous posters have already assumed that you do not deserve your acceptance or position without bothering to talk to you.

Not that it matters but at my V5 firm pre-summer retreat, the black students that I spoke with were just as if not more articulate and capable than their white counterparts. I did not make assumptions about them and came to find out that they were in the top percentiles of their T10 schools and often on law review or other journals.

Blaming black students for your (not necessarily 1:35) inability to land a top job or get into a top school is just sour grapes.

12:07 - UMich Law Review can't consider race or gender now because of Proposal 2. However, the Law Review application still asks for

"A 250-word personal statement with the following instructions:At the Michigan Law Review, we are committed to building a superb intellectual community comprised of members who will contribute to the legal profession over the course of their careers. To that end, we seek students of diverse life experiences, interests, and perspectives. Please tell us about your background, experience, or any particular areas of interest, and how that contributes to the unique or underrepresented perspective you will bring to the legal community. The Michigan Law Review is particularly interested in people who have demonstrated an ability to overcome adversity or particular challenges."

http://www.michiganlawreview.org/about/AE106.pdf

Ms. Young was fired from her job last summer so she clearly has an axe to grind with Covington. She chose to get back at her former employer by pulling a cheap race card.

10:10pm - "Middle eastern people face discrimination and get no affirmative action." Really? Welcome to my world. Most discussions re: minorities and AA almost always exclude Asians. But all in all, maybe that's a good thing.

1. I am a black GULC graduate who did well (enough) academically, competed interscholastically on a moot court team, served as an editor for a law journal, and passed every bar exam I took on the first try.

2. I worked in the same BigLaw firm for more years than most of the imbeciles who post on this site have been practicing.

3. During my stint in BigLaw, I encountered many Ivy League trained lawyers---summer associates and practicing attorneys---who could not write well, speak well, or think quickly enough to handle real-world legal issues.

Take-home points:

1. GULC is not ranked higher because it offers a night program, which tends to draw from an applicant pool with less stellar LSAT scores and grade-point averages. GULC takes the hit on the rankings but pockets the extra money it makes off the night program. Have you seen the new international law library and first-rate fitness center? Those amenities were paid for, in part, by the proceeds from the night program.

2. Just because you go or went to Harvard or Yale or another "top school" to study law means nothing in the world of BigLaw (this is one of the myriad flaws in Ms. Young's reasoning). Many graduates of "top schools" don't have what it takes to last longer than five years in a AmLaw 50 law firm.

3. Stop spending so much time in the "blogosphere" writing comments you would not dare utter in person.

4. Go work on your interpersonal skills; most lawyers, especially the ones from the "top law schools," are socially inept. That's why guys like me have been kicking your ass since the day I walked into law school.**

**And guess what: I am going to continue to kick your ass, without playing the "race card." I am your worst nightmare (and most likely your girlfriend's/wife's fantasy).

Re: "GULC is not ranked higher because it offers a night program": night program numbers for GULC are not reported to US News and don't affect the rankings.

Don't forget discrimination against the moustachioed.

It's funny how AA causes whites to simply foam at the mouth in anger. Lat, maybe you can find a topic that combines AA and illegal immigration so you get 500+ comments.

I'm surprised you word-Nazis haven't commented on her use of "fairing" and "sighting."

Anton's "I might not have the LSAT, GPA, or law review credentials... but that's all biased bunk anyway; I'm a strong black man with smooth people-skillz and will out-schmooze you at your own game, and take your lil' white woman, too!" reasoning is amusing.

Sorry, kid, the only thing nightmarish about you is your misperception of reality.

Maybe Hillary should be forced to drop out based upon AA. After all, they are both well qualified but only one is a minority. IF HILLARY BELIEVES IN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, SHE SHOULD DROP OUT NOW.

It's funny how liberals hate it when the rules that apply to every one else have to apply to them.

It's amazing that all these black lawyers think it's such an accomplishment to pass the bar on the first try, that they list it as one of their amazing achievements.

Oh wait, I guess maybe it is, since for example in California the black bar passage rate is 33% and the white bar passage rate is 70%.

Georgetown is TTT?

9:40 - Actually, I was noticing how when educated people speak anonymously about AA, they are much more critical of AA than when they discuss it in the open. That's because its a foolish policy that can't be defended on logical grounds, leaving AA supporters to brand their opponents racist for opposing it. You are a perfect example, as you assume every critic on this board is white.

I am a minority. I had an interview with a top firm once and I told them I went to Penn Law School. The interviewer told me how much he liked me but didn't higher outside the top 10 law schools. Then he thought again... and said, "oh, you mean Penn State Law, the top 10 school?"

I got the job.

10:33 -- Are you a lawyer for higher? Are you searching for hire ground?

If it is wrong to suggest that any person's success is at least in part due to affirmative action, does this mean that only those people who are unsuccessful actually "benefit" from affirmative action? If so, isn't this an argument for ending affirmative action?

Michigan Law Review had affirmative action at the time of the Grutter case.

8:38("Female Asian to busy to bother)--note that Michigan Law Review's affirmative action policy gave a boost to Asian students as well as blacks and hispanics, and Michigan's minority assistance program has always included Asians. In the 2002-3 academic year, there was a policy of placing equal numbers (literally two in my section that year) of male and female Asian students in each section so no one felt isolated.

I would have been bored silly spending my mid-twenties in the middle of nowhere (Duke, UVA, Cornell) for law school. Instead I went to law school school in DC, made money clerking during the year at a biglaw firm, enjoyed the bars and restaurants of a big city, and wound up at V20 firm. I didn't suffer by not choosing the USNWR rankings.

To be fair, GULC, I don't think the only reason why people choose UVa or Duke over GULC is the prestige/rankings factor. UVa and, to a lesser extent Duke, have reputations for being laid back, congenial institutions. I don't think GULC shares the same reputation.

MOST OF YOU ON THIS BOARD CANNOT BE LAWYERS. I refuse to believe it. So many of you have no grasp on reality or knowledge of history. How can you compare the plight of African Americans to other ethnic groups?

HISTORY. For hundreds of years, we White Americans have profited from the exploitation of minorities, starting with Native Americans and Blacks. America is the rich and prosperous country it is today because of the benefits it received from this exploitation (I feel strongest about the plight of African-Americans). How awesome was hundreds of years of free labor (slavery) that resulted in America’s billion-dollar agricultural industry – that made the American quality of life better than anywhere in Europe or the world….which YOU are still reaping the benefits of today?

ABC’s. It was the policy of the American government to murder slaves that could “read and write” (ironically, the most critical skill needed as a lawyer). Post-slavery, it continued this policy well into the 70s (and arguably2008) by giving blacks inferior public-schooling. Lack of education = a bad thing, and has plagued minorities through the generations. Therefore, education has never been a core cultural value in many black/minority communities because they never had access to it. Education is positively correlated to access to wealth, and wealth = better quality of life (which we all want). In light of our (White-American) ancestors’ exploitation, negative treatment, and deprivation of educational opportunities to minorities, AA is necessary to level the playing field. The playing field is uneven, which as Chris Rock said, is because “you had a 400 –hundred year head start.” YET YOU DUMMIES ON THIS BOARD ASK QUESTIONS LIKE, "Why don't blacks start their own firms?"

Because they may be secretly labeled as the inferior “AA hire”, minorities have to work harder to prove that they “belong here”, and have a deeper appreciation for the opportunities given them. Many minorities do not leave law firms because they can’t handle the work; rather it’s because they feel alienated. Do you know how it feels to be the only black male out of 300+ attorneys in an office? To be confused with being “support” staff because of your race? As I have realized, being born white is a gift. Our white skin, is probably the BEST social capital we have.

Honest Abe, why don't you read up on the American exploitation of Jews, Italians, Irish, Chinese (railroads), Japanese (internment camps), Arabs, etc., and come back with an affirmative action proposal to level the playing field for those groups as well.

So existing privately-run law firms should pick up the slack of the failed public educational system, and they must expand racial quotas by hiring undereducated blacks. Uh huh.

10:29,

White?

11:29,

No, most of these people aren't lawyers. They're anti-AA trolls.

12:06-
Honest Abe has predictably provoked a backlash. No one likes to be lumped in with bad actors from prior centuries. Also, it's fair to say that you or I do not owe anyone else a living.
I would like to ask you whether it's your opinion that blacks you've practiced with are undereducated. Do you generally assume that black attorneys are less qualified than white attorneys? The resentment AA policy causes is a strong argument in favor of ending AA, but many of these posts suggests this resentment is as much against blacks as it is against AA policy. After reading these posts, it's hard to believe many of the posters treat their black colleagues the same as they treat their white colleagues. This is a lot of resentment for a young black attorney to overcome. Again, you don't owe anyone a leg up because of socio-economic forces you didn't contribute to, but the resentment here seems directed at black lawyers as a group an not just AA policy.

Regardless of my personal beliefs about my black colleagues, Honest Abe seems to think that blacks should be hired despite their lack of education in public schools. Hence, my skepticism about hiring undereducated blacks.

And this make-up-for-slavery argument is getting tiresome. Some of my ancestors fought to free the slaves in a war where half a million Americans died. That's enough compensation, thanks, especially since slavery continued at that time in Africa. My other ancestors immigrated later.
And how many Jews today had ancestors who owned slaves? I'd guess not many.

"To be confused with being “support” staff because of your race?"

Had it happen a couple of times as a white female and it sucked. I agree that it happens to black associates all the damn time.

If you keep on getting confused with black support staff, the proper solution is to tell your firm to stop hiring so many blacks as support staff and to get more white people as support staff.

Try it and you will see how well that works. No black support staff, no confusion.

12:26-
Points taken. You don't feel you owe an ethnic group special treatment. I'm not arguing with that position. It's a valid perspective, and one with which I find myself increasingly in agreement.
I posed my questions only to suggest that while you yourself may not have any antipathy towards your black colleagues, it seems that there is a lot of resentment against them in the profession. That's not to say that Jews were not discriminated against or other ethnic groups haven't been dealt a craptastic hand (Native Americans jump to mind).
I just want you to consider that if a lot of non-black attorneys assume that black attorneys are generally unqualified, that can really hamper career development. If there's an assumption that blacks as a group do poorly and that a black individual attorney probably can't cut it, that's going to be a very difficult stereotype to combat for the individual black attorney, who very well might have great creds and can in fact do the work.
I know this will elicit, "gimme a break," responses, but making it in the profession is challenging enough as it is without having to fight the perception/assumption that being black means you're undereducated, unqualified, etc. Most posters here would not flourish if they had to combat that perception.
You I don't know. You might be a great guy who has himself encountered a lot of challenges and has had to fight for everything you've gotten professional development wise. AA might be a bad thing, but the AA debate inevitably turns into a who owes who what, blacks are terrible at law and school comments clusterf*ck.

When white people meet a Jewish or Asian lawyer, do they think that they are unqualified because of their ethnicity? No because these minorities got to where they are because of their own hard work.

On the other hand, white people are resentful against black attorneys because affirmative action is sufficiently pervasive that there is a presumption that the black person got a boost because of his race. If blacks want to break this cycle and stop combating that perception, they can get rid of affirmative action, but I think pigs will start flying first.

It's not about race, it's about AA-boosted races.

HONEST ABE to anon 12:18: Affirmative action is not about fixing "socio-economic forces" to which you did not contribute. Rather, it's about fixing the past wrongs from which WE white Americans NOW benefit. As I said previously, no one can doubt that slavery (free labor) was a powerful factor in making America the Super Power it is today. The benefits have trickled down to today. Blacks take the jobs that WE and OUR children would not, which is a direct result of historical American racism. Who cleans the bathrooms and empties the trash at BIGLAW, so you don't have to? Who works in the cafeteria at your law school? Your kids' college? Who picks up your garbage everyday in NYC? The majority of them, are Black. Now ask yourselves, why is the bottom mostly Black?

This is a capitalist society. Undoubtedly, some people have to be on the bottom....but the bottom is disproportionately Black. You don't mind because you benefit.

Honest Abe to 12:26. You are an example of a "history dummy." Do you really believe AA is about "making up for slavery"? Is 1863 the year you think the degradation of black people ended? My neighbor's father still remembers having to sit in the back of a movie theater....in Philadelphia (a northern state)....in the 60s (100 years after slavery ended). That's just 1 example.

Did you know that today, in NYC and Philly, many predominately-black public high schools don't permit students to take text book home? Is that conducive to learning and equal opportunity?

Have you read comments on this thread and OTHERS? Do you see the racist attitudes that people still bear today? I'm guessing your response would be, "People wouldn't be racist if affirmative action was illegal. duh." Even if affirmative action was banned, people would still view qualified blacks as "inferior" because they come from an "inferior" ethnic group.

I'm in favor of affirmative action because Diversity has value. If a client is accused of racial employment discrimination, who would best represent the client in a mediation? A White male who has a limited view of minorities? Or a Black associate who would be better able empathize with the viewpoints of the plaintiff? Or....what about commercial real estate transactions involving racially homogenous neighborhoods? I could pose a number of different hypotheticals to show how diversity has value.

In response to black people forced to sit in the back of the theater in 1960s Philadelphia, the correct solution is
a) fix the law by 1970 and integrate the theater
b) do that and also make private law firms in 2008 hire undereducated blacks from crappy public schools
Ookay.

AA categorizes and ranks people based on race. This is unconstitutional. The fervor with which people discuss their distaste for AA just *might* be because they are thoroughly disgusted by unconstititionally discriminatory policies that produce a litany of documented ill-effects while simultaneously providing its supporters with a platform to self-righteously pat themselves on the back for their commitment to diversity.

I'm all for rooting out true racism. Far too often, race hustlers whine far too long about racism and as a result, it dulls any sense of outrage in white America. In a sense, the "boy who cried wolf" scenario presents itself.

By ridding institutions of AA, we rid employees from having ANY excuse to disparage black workers. Thus, the next time people rail on about all the "underqualified" blacks in their jobs, it would be much easier to point out true racists as opposed to simply "inferring" racism because certain points on AA "border on racial animus."

HONEST ABE to 1:33. I gave the movie theater example to rebut someone's assertion that racism ended when slavery did. You argue that "making private law firms" hire blacks is a poor solution. First, diversity in law firms is a client-motivated ideals, not government. As BIGLAW becomes international and Corporations become more diverse, no one wants to be represneted by the Old Boys Club anymore.

Second, AA has the effect of lifitng families and their subsequent generations out of poverty....so yes, that is a solution. I also explained that AA has value other than correcting past wrongs, i.e. the examples in my previous post about client needs.

There will come a day where Blacks are not poorer, but just AS POOR as Whites. That's the day that AA will no longer be needed.

Recent people who have tried to play the race card:
1. Cynthia McKinney after she physically attacked a guard who asked for her ID
2. Wesley Snipes in his tax evasion case
3. Kwame Kilpatrick, when the black Detroit population turned against him for his philandering
4. William Jefferson, who stuffed bribe money in a freezer

Given all these people crying wolf, I'm sorry if white people are becoming increasingly incredulous at claims of institutional racism in America.

HONEST ABE to 1:33. I gave the movie theater example to rebut someone's assertion that racism ended when slavery did (and it didn't end there). Nevertheless, you argue that "making private law firms" hire Blacks is a poor solution. First, AA has the effect of lifitng families and their subsequent generations out of poverty....so yes, that is a solution.

Second, diversity in law firms is a client-motivated ideals, not government. As BIGLAW becomes international and Corporations become more diverse. No one wants to be represented by the Old Boys Club anymore.

Third, I also explained that AA has value other than correcting past wrongs, i.e. the examples in my previous post about client needs.

There will come a day where Blacks are not poorer, but just AS POOR as Whites. That's the day that AA will no longer be needed.

So Honest Abe, why don't we screen black AA-recipients so that the benefits go to only public school graduates living in poverty? 75% of blacks don't live in poverty. Oh maybe because it's not about fighting poverty or any economic goals, since otherwise AA would also go to poor whites.

I'm becoming enraged at the stupid repsonses I am getting. As I said 10 times before, Most of you CANNOT be Lawyers

Honest Abe to 1:52. You're absolutely right. 75% of blacks do no live in poverty. Great job of using the Census report, which states 25% of blacks live in poverty.

But you're an Idiot. Do you know what that means? All you are saying is that 75% of Blacks make more than $10,488 annually. You can still be extremely poor, but not be below the poverty line....and blacks are much "closer" to the poverty line than whites.

1:01
"On the other hand, white people are resentful against black attorneys because affirmative action is sufficiently pervasive that there is a presumption that the black person got a boost because of his race. If blacks want to break this cycle and stop combating that perception, they can get rid of affirmative action, but I think pigs will start flying first.

It's not about race, it's about AA-boosted races."

So, let's say you're my supervising attorney and you secretly think all these negative thoughts about me (I'm black), can I expect you to be completely unbiased in your dealings with me?
The way you write that blacks should end affirmative action is not helpful. There isn't some national referendum for blacks to select yes or no on the issue. This is clearly pointless. You obviously have a low opinion of blacks. The why no longer matters as you take that low opinion into the work place and at the very least treat your white colleagues better because of it. With enough people like you I'm sure any plausible benefits of AA are effectively nullified. Get rid of AA. It won't ever change your views on race.

So why are we giving AA to all blacks, including educated ones whose families make six-digit figures, without screening for economic situation, while giving no special treatment to poor uneducated whites below the poverty line, when the justification for AA is to fight poverty and lack of education.

My eyes are hurting from reading these pointless posts. Who wants to ditch work and walk over to Magnolia for a cupcake?

My eyes are hurting from reading these pointless posts. Who wants to ditch work and walk over to Magnolia for a cupcake?

Zed (1:44) - You forgot the most recent person to play the race card: Barack Obama. Yesterday's speech was a new classic in the ol' race-bait-n-switch.

What? My pastor of twenty years is an America-hating, Jew-hating racist? No problem. I'll just deliver a speech blaming whitey. Now, on to the nomination I go...

"Honest Abe" sees the world full of racists, and it's not. Blaming others for your failings in life is what keeps too many blacks poor, uneducated and unsuccessful.

I have seen many Koreans come here without a penny, speak no English, and within 10 years they are driving a Lexus and sending their kids to Ivy League schools. You want to know their secret? They do more than is expected of them.

Predominately Black High School students not being able to take home text books? What about the white folks who go there? Why should someone who is black at that school have an advantage over someone who is white?

And don't talk about me not knowing about racism. Although I am white, I am married to someone of a different race. I've felt it and been there. The key, my friend, is not letting your race get into your mind. There are plenty of good people out there who will give you the chance to succeed not because of what you are, but because of who you are.

For a group of unbelievably well-educated people in a profession that demands critical thinking and thoughtful analysis, there are an awful lot of lemming-type posts on this issue.

You believe that LSAT scores have something to do with law school qualifications because that what's driven into your panicked skulls by top tier law schools and the monopoly that is LSDAS. The reality, however, is that the LSAT has almost no predictive value as far as law school success goes, except at the bottom outliers. The actual statistical difference between the likelihood that a 70th percentile LSAT scorer will be top 10% at any tier school and a 95% percentile scorer is insignificant. The reason that T5 ot T10 or T50 schools demand top LSAT scores isn't for the predictive value -- it's because it is a convenient way to discriminate between 8,000 applications and to preserve standings in USNWR rankings.

So, please don't give me that line of crap that a Black (or any other person) who got into a T5 with a 155 LSAT shouldn't be there because s/he is being set up to fail. If the rest of the academic credentials are there (e.g., grades and activities that suggest reading comp, critical and logical thinking aptitude), then the candidate's success is a reflection only of his/her drive to succeed. Those complaining that this "underqualified" person took your spot contribute to the alarmist arguments against affirmative action that prevent the real dialogue necessary to rectify what is wrong about that remedy.

And 2:55, you are an ignorant shit-disturber who cannot possibly comprehend plain English if that was your "interpretation" of Obama's speech. Try reading it BEFORE you shoot off your ill-informed mouth.

institutional memory @11:17am, perhaps you should re-read Female Asian's post again. Nowhere did she say that Asians were excluded from AA - only that they tended to be left out in most discussions re: minorities. Also, I know nothing of Michgan but I'm willing to bet that most had the stats to get in without consideration of minority status. I'm no slouch but my wife (Korean, btw) has kicked my butt academically since undergrad.

"It's not about race, it's about AA-boosted races." 1:01, exactly right.

See the research regarding AA in law schools:

http://www.law.ucla.edu/sander/Systemic/SA.htm

9:54, asian americans are routinely discriminated against under diversity programs at major engineering schools like MIT.