first

Minority only and Minority preferences are different.

The first is wrong, the second isn't.

Can we move on before this gets ugly?

third

First to agree.

this thread is bout ta be blowed up

Lat, that baby in your sponsor's ad has some sort of mouth problem.

Once you've gotten through high school, college, and most or all of graduate school, isn't it time that you begin to achieve based solely on your actual merits as opposed to, in part, due to an arbitrary race-based boost?

I think Ch. J. Roberts said it best when he said (paraphrasing) the best way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

1- "it's racism to exclude people based on race. period."

2-"no, remedying past exclusion doesn't express any negative view toward the majority. you're a racist for equating a remedy for racism with racism"

1- "but these programs aren't at all tailored to past harms. you're a racist for assuming we can remedy past harms to some people by helping any old members of the same race"

2- "but past harms aren't that specific, they affect the whole fabric of our society. plus diversity is a compelling interest. you're racist for ignoring that."

1- "but diversity can be accomplished as easily, or more easily, by race neutral factors. you're a racist for assuming race equates to diversity."

2- "privileged WASPs don't have a right to go to law school or work in biglaw, so stop acting like it's a travesty for institutions to pursue diversity in a less than perfect way. you're a racist for feeling so entitled."

1- "racist"

2- "racist"

3- both sides are tools. none of this is really that big a deal either way. pro-minority bias in biglaw hiring and scholarship assignments is just one of dozens of dumb biases that you could fixate on if you wanted, and neither has that substantial an impact on our society.

Agree with 1:43

It appears the point of programs like this is to provide connections and enhanced career prospects to students who would otherwise have a hard time getting their foot in the door.

That said, they really should focus on a socio-economic component more than race or gender. The purpose and spirit of these programs is ill served when minority students from six-figure incomed parents receive full scholarships and cushy summer associate positions. These students are more likely to have connections than the white student who worked hard and got himself out of the trailer park, meaning at the end of the day someone lost a much needed networking opportunity.

1:50,

That all depends on how you define "merit." Diversity czars and their ilk view one's status as URM as implicitly meritorious, equal to 6-7 LSAT points or 25-30% of law school class rank. At least billables are the same for everyone.

I'm surprised that "Appropriate" isn't winning in the poll.

Am I the only Guilty White Liberal reading ATL?

(And yeah, I'm voting for Obama.)

I voted appropriate and I am CONSERVATIVE. To the extent that law schools want to give minorities a leg up, so that law firms can give minorities a leg up, so that clients can have law firms that give minorities a leg up... awesome! I have seen the "business world" -- and it is a bunch of duke frat boys giving eachother legs up (among other things). It is all about "legs up" on wall street -- banks, law firms, politics.

Rutgers, the State U. of NJ has historically discriminated against the majority (i.e. white guys) in virtually all aspects of its endeavors, admissions, job fairs, academic requirements... If you're a white guy applying to Rutgers Law with a 160 LSAT you could very well be waitlisted. If youre a minority with a 160 the State will give you money to go there. Rutgers should be sued!

To the extent there are still white people in Jersey...I assure you, they are meat-heads scoring no where near 160 on LSAT. Get a union job and give up on this "law school dream". What are you too good for us?! Eh? Eh?

Serves Wilson right for going to a TTT. What did he expect? There's no job for him, whether or not there's a minority job fair.

1:54 - Are billables the same for everyone? At some point, isn't the quality of the work noticed? So, assuming it is necessary to use AA to get the job in the first place isn't there a greater likelihood that the AA hire will not meet the firm's standards? Then the firm will be forced to either artificially inflate that person's pay/rank or justify inequal raises/promotion for the AA hire. It never stops.

Moreover, the cycle of hatred never stops because either the other attorneys resent the unearned inflation in pay/rank or the AA hire resents the unequal pay/rank and everyone comes back to conclude it's an AA/racism thing.

Plus, those non-AA hires of URM groups suffer from the unwarranted stigma of being an AA hire and their earned accomplishments are considered suspect.

2:01,
"meat heads" - should be 1 word, no hyphen
"no where" - should be 1 words.
"law school dream". - the period should be inside the quotation marks.

And remember this -- New Jersey makes, New York takes.

I don't see a problem with it as long as the schools and law firms offer seperate but equal scholarships for students of other races.

2:07, thanks that made me laugh out loud.

Which minority groups are not considered for URM status in the legal profession?

Honest question.

The fact of the matter is, whether you like it or not, there is a demand for minority law students/lawyers and short supply. Thus, firms are going to do what they can to increase the supply, or at least increase their share of the supply.

If you want to change this preferential treatment, the best way to go is to reduce the demand for minority attorneys (reducing the supply only will serve to increase the benefits for those minorities who remain). Suggested approaches include screwing over the minorities who work for you and smearing the names of the minorities who work above you. Eventually, no one will want hire minorities, because they will be seen as bad lawyers.

And don't worry, the number of minorities in the legal profession is decreasing every day, so soon you won't have to worry that some minority is getting a benefit that you're not.

AA is bad for everyone. In law school wasn't it typically pretty clear who was there as an AA admit? (example, the mexican guy that could barely read).

What makes this country great? Our endless system of appeals!!! This "minority" pandering will not end. Soon minorities will be in majority -- and majority will be seeking new rights as the new minority. Can you translate the ballot from spanish to english, por favor?

Is it possible to have a nuanced view here? Is it possible that we narrowly define "minority" to those specific individuals that actually need private or public assistance.

Law schools are run by white people -- administration, professors and librarians. This has been true since the first law school opened. Law schools have been giving "minority" handouts to women, race-based, etc., for at least a century -- and we still have not reached any parity. Perhaps it is time to: (a) abandon this ideology or (b) abandon the methodology.

I for one would prefer an attractive, white, female lawyer to represent me. Does that make me racist? Sexist? You can "label" me, but I take your labels and tie up your arguments and hurl them back at you, with my own labels. Labels are merely Balls spelled without an E (or Bellas). So anyone with Balls must necessarily be labeled, but so must "bellas" or italian women.

Poor little white guy: victim of the colored man's racist system of oppression.

2:13 said it all... next thread please!

I'm against AA, but what about "Legacy" candidates for top schools? Isn't that a much bigger problem? Maybe this applies to a much smaller subset of schools (who can imagine donating a science wing to get your semi-moron son into Rutgers) but however you slice it - 1:58 is right: its all about the leg up. The only people that dont have a leg up are middle class white males.

I just love when the people who want Ebonics or Spanish taught in school on par with English argue that grammatically correct English is discriminatory against minorities and just a conspiracy to keep the ole boys club clean.

Look the bottom-line is that: we NEED Affirmative Action and Affirmative Action WORKS.

The anecdotal and empirical evidence is overwhelming--look at the net positive effects of integration on public schooling, bussing, public housing and urban crime. Without Affirmative Action we would have prisons full of minorites and an epidemic drug problem with supply and demand filled by minorities. The fact is the government's intervention has been critical to avoiding race rights over the last 50-years and succesfully eliminating the need for race-based organizations. I for one would like to see the government take over healthcare and have minority-only contracts for doctors and healthcare providers. Minority recruiting IS seperate but equal -- you scores or grades are not as high, but you are EQUAL to a non-minority that is in every where superior. The government has accomplish EQUALITY and now the UN Human Rights Committee is taking these principles around the world. John Locke and Brit Hume are making love in the after life.... (but Hobbes is smiling).

I'm ok with these minority job fairs and such as long as Howard and other HBCUs have job fairs that cater exclusively to their minority White students, and offer diversity scholarships to those White students.

Idealism on the intellectual level and blatant abuse on the practical level.

Are the LGBT folks who get jobs still fighting the good fight while working 2400 hrs per year? Are the minorities benefitting from minority preferenced scholarships going back to help their communities en masse?

Law firm bosses hate this BS and their commitment to diversity is little more than counterintuitive lip service. If education standards were in place at the primary levels and people actually had similar opportunities this would be less of an issue. Assigning weighted values or job preferences only incites the former moderates regardless of the policies actual effects. You damn well better believe I am upset when at $36k a year I was treated like garbage while special interest groups had parties and events paid for by the school. Thats what I will remember when i get my donation card in the mail and I am not proud of it. Why again is it ok to claim "diversity" and then promote groups that are nothing more than homogenous cliques that assist only 1 group?

In the end these policies only increase racial tensions and, for those persons who genuinely earned their grades and have achieved a great deal, casts a shadow over their accomplishments. What a pity.

For a bunch of smart people we sure do some dumb things.

I don't have a problem with minority scholarships and the like, that are privately funded and such. The problem is that once you handhold a minority through law school, and then they turn up in a decent firm, and you realize their work actually sucks, because they didn't belong there in the first place ... here it is ... wait for it ... you can't fire them, because they'll sue, and you'll be a racist. Oh well, whatever, eventually the most qualified and best performers will find their way to the top, right? Right?

2:21... middle-class white males have their leg up -- resting on the backs of minorities everywhere! When was the last time you saw a middle-class white boy cleaning a hotel room, picking lettuce or washing a car? The Middle Class Whites are the millstone around this countries neck! Entitled, video-gamers, shooting guns, going to the prom and the mall (the "good mall").

GET OFF MY BACK

Under the "One Drop" Rule, who is properly considered a minority?

Resolve this question first (because [1] there is no good answer, which [2] renders the balance of this question moot)

Lat,

don't use up all your good comment war starting topics in a single day.

"Without Affirmative Action we would have prisons full of minorites and an epidemic drug problem with supply and demand filled by minorities."

Uh... and that's different from what we have now in what way?

If you think this is bad, go to one of the many, many big law firms that takes race into account in making partnership decisions because they have so few minority partners that their clients are starting to complain. I wish I were joking.

2:30-

the clients aren't complaining because of the quality of work, they're complaining because they've been forced into promoting minorities into management that have set rules regarding the percentage of minorities they have to give legal work to, and if the good firms don't put more blacks on the website they're going to have to start using other firms. that's it, i wish you were joking, too, but if you've actually had the discussions with clients, that's the reality. I know firms that have bought, as essentially wholly-owned subsidiary firms, black only firms just so they can keep milking the corporations, and the black firms don't do any of the work, they just pass it up the ladder, and take their cut for being a conduit. sad huh? wouldn't it be better if giving the work to minorities wasn't a requirement? Yes, I agree.

2:29, are you serious? Have you heard of sarcasm????

2:26 but is middle class white people the millstone because they are white or simply because they are middle class. While there was a time for AA, the problem is now that there are minorities in the middle and upper class it doesn't make sense to treat their kids as if they grew up underprivileged.

If we do AA it should be income(as a proxy for opportunity) based not just race.

This is coming from a minority whose numbers were a little lower than my current HYS peers and was raised by a former NY big law partner turned government official (he was pre-AA so FU to anyone who thinks he is a token)

It's inherently wrong, to discriminate based on race -- even in the name of "diversity." Nonetheless, I'll defend the rights of a private institution like Seton Hall to discriminate as much as they like.

If a firm wants to have a special program to hire minorities, that is their business as well. We shouldn't compel anyone to hire someone that they do not want to hire.

It's funny that every white person who can't get into a particular law school or can't get a job with a good firm always plays the race card. But for those minorities, I would have ... Riiiiiight. Never mind those who get in by legacy or close personal connections. It's not their fault, just the minorities. Riiiight.

229 - you're irony radar must be down. That post was full of irony and grammatical mistakes. However, the top-notch use of irony clearly makes up for everything.

2:36, what years count as "pre-AA"? When did affirmative action start?

And in all these recent years when your black daddy has kept his job, you don't think affirmative action helped him a bit as others (whites) in similar jobs sometimes get laid off?

"It's funny that every white person who can't get into a particular law school or can't get a job with a good firm always plays the race card."

EVERY white person? Every last one of them? Come on.

1:59 is right. Rutgers had a 12 page application, and probably 10 pages of it was asking about diversity. I stopped after the third page, threw it in the trash, and found a different safety school. Slutgers is a shithole anyway.

2:37

Legacies are:
- less numerous,
- receive less of an LSAT/GPA bump, and
- an important motivator for the previous generations (isn't one of the reasons we all want to be rich so that we can give a good life to our kids).

I hate it when people equate race and economic class with one another.

The middle-class minority isn't "cleaning a hotel room, picking lettuce or washing a car" either Tiger Ten (2:26). He's middle-class!

AA is an example of a horribly-implemented-plan "designed" to achieve a poorly-thought-out goal.

The poor white kid has more in common with the poor black kid than the rich black kid does. If you want diverse backgrounds, which may or may not be laudable in its own right, achieve that diversity by bringing together people with different life experiences, not only those with different skin tones.

"It's funny that every white person who can't get into a particular law school or can't get a job with a good firm always plays the race card."

EVERY white person? Every last one of them? Come on.
-------------------------------------

OK, "every" was a little hyperbole but you get my point.

To all the AA advocates:

What is your benchmark for determining that AA is no longer necessary?

I love how it's not racial discrimination so long as you're discriminating in favor of minorities...

2:26 I get your meaning from your sarcastic tone - but its true in a lot of ways: The "system" that all these people rail against and complain about being discriminated against by is the economy that was made possible by a bunch of white guys. No one would ever suggest that white guys should be given a reward by society for all their contributions like corporations, the bill of rights, and automatic weapons - but maybe they should.

Just because legacy admits exist, doesn't mean that affirmative action should continue to exist too. Most people who are opposed to AA are also opposed to legacy.

Maybe the pro-AA people have a hard time figuring out that two wrongs don't make a right.

Every partner and associate (and paralegal for that matter) knows exactly who the AA attorney hires are- their work product is simply not on par with the other associates that graduated from similar schools. Total waste of time and money.

Asians vastly outnumber Euros in this global economy - where's my handout?

All other things being equal, why is taking into account one's minority status in making a decision such a bad thing? Candidates for law firms, making partner, or law schools come with all kinds of things on their resumes that present an opportunity for the institution to diversify and broaden itself. Being a minority usually implies different life experiences, backgrounds, languages, interpersonal skills, relationships, geographic representations, view points, etc. which can all contribute to the greater goal of a well-rounded law firm/law school. It's the same decision made when evaluating any two candidates of nonminority background. In the end, we are chosen because something about us is seen as a positive - whether it be minority status or a unique skill.

If all other things aren't equal, I don't think decisions should be made based on URM status alone. Perhaps a better measure is to see what obstacles such minority status has presented in the person's life and how they have been overcome to the best of that person's abilities. In that sense, this would not only be approrpriate for URMs, but also any social group from say... a financially poor background, or a crime infested neighborhood.

Life at BigLaw and getting rejected from HLS has turned many of you into angry, angry people...

"Legacies are ... an important motivator for the previous generations (isn't one of the reasons we all want to be rich so that we can give a good life to our kids)."

So now you're justifying a discriminatory practice because it's motivating for others? M'kay.

Legacy makes sense and is not even comparable to AA. If legacies are dumber, could you imagine a AA legacy combo?!!?

2:48(last),

Is anger, caused by these hard lives of ours, the only plausible reason for holding a view you disagree with?

Some level of discourse, that. You don't agree with me, therefore you have issues.

How come if you are half white, half black you are BLACK and not white? How come Barack is not the "White MLK" (rather than black JFK)?

Was Barack the recipient of AA? Would it matter? If he was, could we say, look ""AA works, now we have a viable presidential candidate" or "AA works, we created messiah"

2:49

Legacy isn't that discriminatory. A minority student whose parents went to the school get the same benefit. And who pays for your fin aid once you get in as a AA? The parents of the legacy who with their school loyalty now through the roof donate more.

Let's be honest. AA kids are just the play toys the legacy's parents buy him.

White people are funny (not all, but most). Every advantage, every benefit and every opportunity is yours and yet you cry about reverse racism. You guys have survived this long only by your abuse and manipulation of others. Lay off minorities, they have never done anything to you.

The reason legacy always comes up in an AA discussion is that the main argument against AA is one of unearned access at the expense of others. Legacy admissions offer the exact same problem of unearned access. You cannot argue against one and argue for the other without being a hypocrite.

@ 2:12

Kind of like it wasn't obvious that the white kid who clearly couldn't read either had money or connections?

2:54,

That last statement of yours is too right. That's what it's all about.

I have always dreamed of playing baseball in the major leagues. As a Jew, I am clealry a minority in terms of number of Jews in MLB.

Can I get some MLB AA?

Oh, last time I checked Jews were still a statistical minority on the US and have been subject to discrimination in this country within the last 100 years. Asian Americans are also in the same boat (including representation in MLB).

I understand that Jews never had to deal with slavery, which is a big deal.

Asian Americans were put into internment camps 65 years ago. Unlike Jews, who can arguably hide their Jewish identities, Asian Americans cannot. I don't believe that Asian Americans, a minority benefit from AA and, in fact, are sometimes on the short end of the stick at certain school. And to be fair, many whites moan and groan about Asian Americans taking their spots in elite colleges. They should shut their traps.

Not everyone... but def some people are showing anger...

"(example, the mexican guy that could barely read). "

"You damn well better believe I am upset when at $36k a year I was treated like garbage while special interest groups had parties and events paid for by the school."

"Every partner and associate (and paralegal for that matter) knows exactly who the AA attorney hires are- their work product is simply not on par with the other associates that graduated from similar schools. Total waste of time and money. "

2:55

So should we have an estate tax of 100% if we don't want the previous generation to be able to give the next generation a leg up? The whites who have a leg up have it because they earn it. Hate to break it to you, but old money families are hard to find. It is all now because someone within 3 generations worked hard and come from nothing. One of the reasons people today work hard is to give their kids the leg up. Would you (regardless of race) be a lawyer if you knew your kids want not going to have some advantages in life.

One thing I loved about law school (and yes, admittedly, there weren't many) was the anonymous grading system. You write down that anonymous number and you get the grade that your work product warrants...regardless of skin color, economic status, class-participation, kissing up to the professor, etc.

2:58,

A view emphatically held is not necessarily a product of anger, irrational anger in particular.

Here's the deal:

Discrimination is bad, all the time. But I'm going to sell out in a heartbeat when a client demands more diversity on a legal team. I'd hire women, minorities, veterans, non-lawyers or even Martians if the client was going to pay me for it. That's just business sense.

Just like me, the people doing the discriminating at schools and law firms already got theirs, and they're just going to get more by using AA. You shouldn't be surprised by that.

1:54: I'm guessing that most of the people reading this are white law students trying to get a job.

10-4 to 2:59.

There is the minor problem that race-based discrimination is constitutionally prohibited while favoring legacies is not. I mean, not to get bogged down in details.

Barack will be whatever you want him to be as long as you give him your vote.

2:59, the law review selection processes used to be purely color-blind, but too few minorities qualified for the law reviews so affirmative action had to be introduced. Now, what are the odds that a black law review editor was chosen purely on the merits.

How long until affirmative action is introduced into law school grading? Last time I checked, not many minorities were magna cum laude.

AA is a necessary evil, but only if you equate race with wealth. The inequity of opportunity falls mainly along racial lines simply because it falls along socioeconomic lines, and AA's only real footing today is to remedy inequity of opportunity.

With regards to legacies - beyond the lack of meritocracy, here's something else to consider - if someone gets into undergrad or grad school as a legacy and their legacy status stems from a relative that attended that school in pre-segregation days, are they effectively getting in based on past segregationist/racist policies? Does this further justify the need for AA?

Stop whining about legacies. Outside of a few hyper rich families and offensive regional shit like Kentucky horse (slave owner) culture, people who come from money usually had their living parents earn it. Grandparents at most. That's not even considered old money by the real "old money" people. Most of the top of the Forbes list are effectively self-made, ex. Walton assholes.

You can go from blue collar background to boardroom or partnership in your own generation in this country. Yes, it's rare, but it does happen, and you don't need to go nearly that far to be comfortable.

Hypothetical: Say you have a corporate client that wants to put some industrial facility in a certain neighborhood--something generally prone to a NIMBY reaction--e.g. a landfill. Say further that the neighborhood is predominantly black and southern baptist. Is it racist to send in a black associate to meet with the neighbors (and let's say, that preacher that exerts so much influence) and attend the public meetings and so forth? Is hiring a black person with the idea that the person might have such uses racist or AA or neither? What if the facts are the same, except the neighborhood is full of Notre Dame grads or Polish people or rednecks that drive jacked up 4x4s...do you send in a Notre Dame grad or a Polish person or a redneck in his pick-em-up? Is there a difference?

Constitution? I am fairly sure that is no longer good law in my circuit (Bush v. Gore overruled that precedent)

"Last time I checked, not many minorities were magna cum laude."

You've checked? I didn't think so.

I would be a much more generous donor to my alma mater law school if they would say "we do not discriminate", eliminate groups like that "Black Law Students Association" that seek to group people by race and end minority preferences in scholarships and admissions.

America is about striving to be the best. Race should not count and I strongly condemn actions which tend to treat someone differently based upon their race. That is the definition of racism.

I'm a black male, make a great living, attended a decent law school and will be up for partnership next year.

I wonder if any of the white individuals on this board would trade places with me...

I'll shut up about AA if someone can answer this question:

Why there needs to be AA for law review selection?

(At my school and most schools the only two factors (1L grades and writing sample) are not race related.)

2:55: You cannot hide....

2:59: That number is as "anonymous" as your social security number. Grades are adjusted all the time, some professors opt for "anonymity" but most don't.

all of you who think that affirmative action is not the answer have not proven that it does not work and have not offered an alternative method. if you really think that we are all starting on a level playing field then obviously you grew up in cookie cutter white suburbia with your great public schools.

the truth of the matter is that all minorities are trying to do is play catch up. if there were better funding for schools, better pay for teachers, then maybe all of you could stop complaining about affirmative action.

the truth is that any kid that got in under supposed affirmative action, is ready to work harder, study harder than anybody else that goes to hls or yale because it was easy to go to the best schools, have the best prep courses and hand-holding known to man.

how about you suck it up, work harder and deal with AA since it's here to stay for the foreseeable future.

Like "anonymous sex", there are consequences to "anonymous grading"...

3:14

what about actual diversification so rather than letting someone in because they check a box, where wealthy minorities get an advantage of poor white people, look at their parents income which will show you the opportunities the individual had.

3:09,
Depends, what do you consider a decent law school and how much do partners make at your firm?

2:48

Because you are being racist when you base it on race, especially when you use race as a proxy for other attributes. In a law firm of 700 people who are considering 15 candidates for partner, they can consider things like different life experiences, backgrounds, languages, interpersonal skills, relationships, geographic representations, view points, etc., without considering race. In fact, I'm sure they do. But they also consider race.

Are you seriously telling me that you would rather be at a law firm that ASSUMES you can speak a different language because your skin is a different color than actually takes the time to find out whether you can actually speak that language?

3:09(2), I've heard that one a bunch of times. But here's thing, you wouldn't trade with me (not black, not a partner) either. Everyone cherishes their own experiences and if you talk to a 60-yr old whose company finally hits it big he'll say he "wouldn't have it any other way." I wouldn't trade my life experiences for anyone else's- Bill Gates, Justin Timberlake, Tom Brady, whoever. And that's common to nearly everyone on earth. (I just read a book about this sort of thing in China.) That question/argument is weak. No one would trade, either way.

3:07, the fact that minorities have lower law school grades and are proportionately fewer in the magna cum laude ranks is well documented and easily observed by anyone who looks at graduation rolls.

For starters, you can check out page 1775 of
http://www.law.ucla.edu/sander/NorthCarolina/sander.pdf

So yes I did check. You're an idiot? I think so.

And the use of affirmative action in law review selection (such as at HLS) would not be necessary if minority law students are as capable as white students.

Good lord there are some dumbass posts above.

E.g., "I have always dreamed of playing baseball in the major leagues. As a Jew, I am clealry a minority in terms of number of Jews in MLB. Can I get some MLB AA?"

Are you just being glib, or are you really that clueless?

OK, I know you're all too busy preparing for high stakes, federal court litigation or drafting multi-billion dollar deals. And that you just happen to take a second outta your 16-hr. days to comment on this site, so that explains the following omission.

It's the CONSTITUTION that makes AA an issue Darrows. Hands: legacies and athletic scholarships aren't given the same scrutiny because they do not implicate the CONSTITUTION. ALL private schools can do whatever the hell they want in this regard, b/c they are not PUBLIC actors, Schecks.

Note: I'm not commenting on the wisdom (or lack thereof) of AA. It's just that I feel if you're gonna post something utterly irrelevant, make it about pirates or some other dumb shit that at least attempts humor.

Hate to break it the Seton Hall kid, but minorities at lower tiered schools don't get jobs from minority geared job fairs. I know some of you jackasses will start complaining about tier snobbery, but I'm talking about reality. A good number of these firms do the minority job fairs to meet their EEOC quota to interview minorities. Additionally, if the job fairs give someone a leg up, the only people who benefit are the best students from top tier schools that didn't land a job from traditional on campus interviews. It's a pretty narrow field and does not include the best students from lower tiered schools who didn't land a job, because the chances of them landing a job was nil in the first place.

JT would gladly trade JT's life for Bill Gates.

JT would gladly trade JT's life for Bill Gates.

I'm a huge opponent of AA (b/c it harms me, not for idealistic reasons), but all the white kids on this board are a bunch of hypocrites. You KNOW that if you were given some special preference, you'd protect it and rationalize it for as long as you could!

I don't blame minorities for a minute for aggressively protecting policies that give them special rewards.

Heck, every other friggin group in the country gets special subsidies and breaks -- farmers, corporations, welfare folks, etc. As Denzel said, everyone's getting theirs -- I'm gonna get MINE! If I were a minority and people complained to me about AA, I would just tell them to give you a call after every other special interest in America gives up their handouts and special preferences!!

3:23
JT, you're crazy. JT gets bitches on his nuts because they want to be on his nuts. Bill Gates would only get bitches on his nuts cause they're trying to get to the cash money.

3:26 - those who want to get on JT's nuts are content once they are there. Those on Bill Gates' nuts know they still have some work to do once they get there. As usual, JT is making the right call.

When I was at Boalt -- after Prop 209 had ostensibly barred affirmative action -- they were rejecting white men and women with 170 LSATs in favor of blacks and latinos with 140-142 LSATs. I know this because a good friend, someone I trust, reviewed several applications and was in on admission decision deliberations (students participate in the process at Boalt).

3:04, you just used "well documented" and pointed me to page 1775 (1775!!!) of some obscure research paper. I mean, hats off to you for finding that in 20 minutes but "well documented?" No.

And throwing out insults like "idiot" shows a lack of class and control. You should be to argue without the insults.

3:07, that "obscure research paper" was published in the North Carolina Law Review. And it's only on page 1775 because the article starts on page 1755. In other words, it's about 20 pages into the pdf article.

If you don't know how to read, please don't bother with this discussion.

Just to help you out, the paper shows that the median GPA percentile for whites is 55% and for blacks is 14%. The source is a NYU law review article using LSAC data.

I love how no AA fans are touching the need for AA on Law Reviews with a 10 foot pole. Why? Because that is the one time they cannot argue some discriminatory factor causing their inability get high grades.

So again,

Why do the top law reviews need to use AA in member selection?

2:24 - "I'm ok with these minority job fairs and such as long as Howard and other HBCUs have job fairs that cater exclusively to their minority White students, and offer diversity scholarships to those White students."

Not that it's a meaningful observation, but I was a white student at a HBCU for undergrad and I did receive a minority grant for attending.

By the way, I find it funny that this crap is big news ... we have minority job fairs, minority networking events, etc. all the time in my city (large West coast city), at local law schools, and at the law school I went to. Many local firms also have "diversity fellowships" for 1L students where they get paid (a) a scholarship that's significant (e.g., $10k) AND (b) a 1L summer job with the firm (paying biglaw salaries) -- these fellowships are targeted to, and awarded exclusively to, minorities. All of this is discriminatory as all hell, of course -- so why is Seton Hall entering into an agreement with the feds while all these other institutions (public and private) engage in all sorts of racially discriminatory behavior?

"There is the minor problem that race-based discrimination is constitutionally prohibited while favoring legacies is not. I mean, not to get bogged down in details."

ummm... For everyone or just for the state?

Private schools that get federal tax exemption and federal funds are effectively state actors.

That's why no private school has racially discriminatory admissions (against blacks). Just ask Bob Jones University.

2:59 --

That's why there was 1 black kid on law review at my top 10 school, but a couple hundred in the class.

Funny (read sad) how most of you immediately assume that any black person that has achieved any measure of success has done so because of AA.

It's a convenient a crutch and its cute.

I'm black and grew up in all white neighborhoods. I also attended majority white schools. I know the advantages that many of you have received. I received them too because my parents could afford them as likely beneficiaries of affirmative action.

I consider myself lucky. I have never checked the race box because I have never had to.

can't speak on the race issue, but anyone who thinks the industry has been accepting of gay diversity is way off. sure there are cocktail parties now and then, but the other 364 nights of the year are filled with doubt...

@Damian 3:30--well, if the friend of a commenter who may not be using his real name says so, then it must be so. Your friend could rat Boalt out to the state of CA for breaking the law, or just let you post the shocking truth here. Whatever works.

P.S. Were any white people with low LSAT scores let in while white people with high scores were rejected? What was the degree of relative whiteness?

2:03 wrote: "1:54 - Are billables the same for everyone? At some point, isn't the quality of the work noticed? So, assuming it is necessary to use AA to get the job in the first place isn't there a greater likelihood that the AA hire will not meet the firm's standards? Then the firm will be forced to either artificially inflate that person's pay/rank or justify inequal raises/promotion for the AA hire. It never stops.

Moreover, the cycle of hatred never stops because either the other attorneys resent the unearned inflation in pay/rank or the AA hire resents the unequal pay/rank and everyone comes back to conclude it's an AA/racism thing.

Plus, those non-AA hires of URM groups suffer from the unwarranted stigma of being an AA hire and their earned accomplishments are considered suspect."

Yes, that's right ... and, in fact, when the URM decides that they don't want to do a job they're not qualified for (or they're given a job in the corporate sector that they're not qualified for, since corporations are also shaken down regularly in order to get them to hire URMs), they leave the law firm that hired them and it is the law firm's fault for failing to "retain" that person. That's the current hot thing in diversity/race stuff -- saying that law firms discriminate against URMs, or fail to provide a sufficiently supportive environment, and cause them to leave. It couldn't be that they can't hack the job (lacking the same intelligence/qualifications as those who can) or lack the motivation to stay ... no, it's because the firm is racist.

Upshot: Add another step or two to the cycle you present above.

I'll note that the backlash is especially significant from guys like me - I was the first to graduate from college in my family, grew up in a poor area, and my family, while "white," were poor farmers who only came to America only a century ago. Poor and middle-class white people are the only group in America that is discriminated against on a regular basis, as a practical matter, and to whom it is acceptable (and lauded) to do so.

Biggest beneficiary of AA? White chicks.

"Biggest beneficiary of AA? White chicks."

Ouch. That hurts. Unfortunately, there is a little truth to that.

Carleton Banks, affirmative action never helped me either.

"That's the current hot thing in diversity/race stuff -- saying that law firms discriminate against URMs, or fail to provide a sufficiently supportive environment, and cause them to leave."

Actually that's not true. That line of thinking has been around for a long time. This error on your part throws into question the rest of your post. Try again.

@Damian--self-pitying much? How bout you graduate magna from Harvard Law and have the media ask if the country is "ready" for you to be President? THAT's discrimination, junior.

I use to be against AA to until I had a work-study job in the admissions office of a top 14 law school. It was sad what lengths the school would go to admit legacies. One guy whose grandfather was a prominent politician in the 1980's who had lots of money got in with a 143 LSAT. I remember the Dean of Admissions asking me to pull a file because a prominent Senator was on the line asking about the status of one of his contributor's children. Heck, once I saw one of the top Democrats in Congress walking out of the Dean of Admissions office. I wonder what they were chatting about. I could go on and on: legacy applications weren't even reviewed by the normal committee. They were sent directly to either the Law School Dean of the Office of the University President. They made the decision whether to admit. Imagine how that works: so I have your son's application in front of me. Oh by the way, we're trying to raising 500 million this year.

Did I see examples of AA for minorities? Sure. There were African-Americans who got in with 150 on their LSAT. But I also so white people from Idaho get in with subpar grades and I also noticed that in general females probably could have 1-2 points less on the LSAT and still get in.

So in the perfect world we wouldn't have any of this but we aren't in a perfect world. My problem with AA opponents is that they blame ethnic minorities for getting preferential treatment while totally ignoring legacy admissions and preferences given to white females. If you're real problem is fairness then you have to blame everyone.

When I was the only black guy at my high school and people assumed I was really good at basketball when all I really wanted to do was complete "Mathlete" practice sets it was no big deal.

kobe, we do oppose all nonmerit preferences. It's just that this thread is about race-based affirmative action, and not, you know, Idaho admits.

Things are fixed one at a time. It's like you're saying that we can't get rid of farm subsidies because there would still exist lumber subsidies.

3:49 -

I don't find it shocking. Every white guy and gal at Boalt whom I knew (other than those on the extreme left, whom I avoided as a general rule) knew what was going on as far as quasi-AA was concerned. It didn't seem "shocking" to us then, nor does it to me now, that those responsible for admissions did everything they possibly could to shoehorn in as many minorities as possible, and that as a general matter, nearly all of the minority students were well below the median in terms of GPA/LSAT and quality of undergraduate institution attended and were only admitted because of their race.

I haven't talked to my friend about whether whites were admitted with below-median LSAT scores, while some with higher scores were rejected. I assume it occurred in some cases in which actual and demonstrable life experience/overcoming adversity was present. Sure, you can say that the same bases were used to admit minorities, but from what I understand, when I talk about below-median scores for white guys, I'm talking about potentially letting the LSAT slide to something like 163 to let in a white guy with compelling circumstances. Blacks and latinos were at a level (140 LSAT) here they should have been attending a community college, not Boalt, and their life circumstances were not particularly compelling. Meanwhile, guys from Iran were deemed "white" because they were born on a certain side of the Caucasus mountain range (literally, Caucasian), were counted as "white" for purposes of calculating admission stats, and were not given preferences in admission. I know this because I had some good friends from the Middle East.

These racially discriminatory admission practices are the cause for the minority groups to go all-out to stop the academic researchers that are trying to analyze law school performance along racial lines ... the minority groups know how that will shake out, owing to the use of anonymous grading.

Of course "Damian" isn't my real name, nor am I using my real email. If you don't want to believe what I'm saying, that's fine. I'm not sure why I would make it up or why what I'm saying would particularly surprise anyone. Do you think I just dreamt all of this up to write on ABL? All this stuff is true and not all that remarkable IMO.

I don't know anyone in the legal profession willing to challenge liberal dogma in the Bay Area and to become a pariah - I'm certainly not going to go down that road. In a thread about the subject, though, I'll certainly write about what I had assumed to be known rather commonly by lawyers. Maybe Boalt was further out on the fringe than I thought.

Stephen Colbert does not see color.

My point isn't about this board discussion it's about the AA discussion overall. White conversatives only talk about preferences in terms of minorities. They rarely, if ever, mention legacies, which at some schools like Notre Dame and Yale reportedely account for 20% of the class. And I also think that if one wants to talk about preferences that may directly discriminate based on a protected category, then you also have to talk about all the preferences white women have received in education over the years. I mean the girl in my high school who wanted to study engineering at MIT wouldn't have gotten in if she were male. That's just a fact and it's prevelant in many fields including business school and law (at least until the mid-90's).

It's also interesting that in terms of law firms AA opponents criticize minority based preferences but ignore women-based preferences that usually benefit whtie women the most. If you've ever worked at a large law firm you know that it's SIGNIFICANTLY easier to make partner if you're female than male. It's probably even easier to make partner as a female than as an African-American. I've seen this first hand in partner decisions where associates who barely bill the minimum make partner while everyone else is working significantly harder.

why are so many people complaining about a program that at most brings in a few minorities into the picture?

Race is a strict scrutiny classification. Gender is an intermediate scrutiny classification. Big difference.

If you have a problem with gender discrimination feel free to call the NBA and the NFL.

3:58 - nice attempt at getting others to dismiss my post based on your opinion. The fact that the thinking has been around a long time does not preclude it from being the hot thing at present, does it? Of course, I only need to point out the flaw in your thinking while granting that you are correct at all about your assertion that the thinking has been around for a long time.

Perhaps your local library has "Logic for Dummies" - if so, I suggest you spend some quality time with it sometime soon.

Damian--I too can think of no reason someone might say a thing were that thing not true. For I am also a poor farmer.

Legacies are BS as well. Are you satisfied, such that you stop saying that conservatives only care about race-based discrimination?

ALUMNI OWN THE FREAKING SCHOOLS... THEIR KIDS SHOULD BE ABLE TO GO. MINORITIES LOVE WHITE DADDY

I'm so sick of white folks (men and women, but mostly men) complaining about "affirmative action." Hell, the most blatant "affirmative action" is at the country club, the swim club, the health club, your kid's prep school, your church or temple (which, BTW, is typically not integrated), your wife's junior league chapter, your rotary club...

need I go on?

Duke frat boys rule the marketplace. I see no problem with minorities "getting a leg up," because they've EARNED everything they get and more, and still don't get half as far because of some idiot's subjective beliefs about "how they'll get along with a group." It always kills me to see minority associates who graduated from T5s working right along side white associates who graduated from T50s....what a joke. Still waiting for the day when all the T5s can be together, regardless of race or gender.

"we are the world...we are the children...it don't matter if you're black or white"

Sincerely,

Jacko

As a black guy who may (or may not) have benefited from AA, I feel sorry for the oppressed white guys on this board. I mean, I only faced moderate discrimination (intentionally placed in lower level classes in grade school until I outperformed upper level students, pulled over for driving while black, stopped in my neighborhood for walking while black, called the N-word at my wedding by a disgruntled country club patron, frequently disrespected and not saluted because I was “mistakenly” thought to be an enlisted serviceman instead of a commissioned officer, bombarded with negative self-imagery since I was a child, not to mention the cumulative societal effects of institutional racism, segregation, and slavery). But you, the oppressed white guy, have to deal with possibly not getting a job/position while other apparently less oppressed white guys do. I don't know how you do it.

I drink YOUR milkshake

I have a dream that my four little 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.

4:17 - how are we to believe what you're saying?

See how much fun it is to question whatever someone says just because this is a message board? I bet "jacko" made up the part about white guys from T50s working with minorities from T5s.

This works pretty well -- if you don't like something -- or its implications -- claim that it's unreliable. Nice.

Face it, black people are mad becuase Eminem and Vanilla Ice dominated rap music in the 90's and 2000's without a single AA program or hand out!

4:19 is BS as well. It's probably some self-hating white guy in San Francisco trying to think of a few anecdotes that could cause some more head-nodding from the lib crowd.

People call me the N-word at my frat house, you don't see me freaking out!? ROTC grads never know who to salute. I was pulled over for driving drunk. I was put in "special ed" until 10th grade!?

The only difference is I am white and you are black.

4:19, if living in the US with White people is so hard for you, you are free to join your fellow Black people in Africa where they will have the utmost respect for your mannerisms, your educational skills, and the integrity of your limbs.

4:25, I think 4:19 is a movie quote, you illiterate fool!

Furthermore, AA HELPS white people. Who do you think is propping up the curve in your law school classes, taking away potential competition for coveted A's in first-year courses? If you are white, and don't have straight A's and a clerkship, you SHOULD lose your spot to AA

I'm out ... have to go bill hours. Unlike minorities, I might actually be fired if I don't produce. I probably wouldn't even get a consultant to review the firm policiees and recommend ways in which the firm should have accommodated me.

The guy with the Roberts quote above was right ... until minority preferences end (and you'd think 45 years would be long enough), you'll always have this divergence of opinion and underlying resentment of minorities getting free passes.

Damian, thanks for the tip. I will check the book out. Do they have Cliff's Notes?

I guess the flaw in your argument is thinking that by throwing out a statment like "the hot thing now" makes it true when it's not. Actually, the hot thing now is white guys with too much time on their hands posting endless drivel on the internet.

I got a book for you:

How about we blind all the hiring partners, so they'll be truly color blind? You figure that the person interviewing won't notice the candidate's race if th