eeek!

Doh!

YIKES!

i am much more worried that F&J remains on the LIST OF SHAME.

It does seem like context makes all the difference here, no?

Lat, can you do some digging around and find out what the story was. After all, if it was about, as you say, "a pro bono case the partner worked on which a victim was attacked and called 'the n word,'" then we might hesitate before smearing F&J's good name.

Lat is right -- although this is clearly inappropriate and offensive, context is important. Can anyone out there shed more light on this incident?

C'mon Lat, we don't need the captioning under the photo of Richards to know what the "N" in "N-word" stands for.

Please be a dear and pull that ugly photo (or redact the caption).

Thanks.

f&J must enjoy discussing race during interviews. i recall spending a few minutes on the topic myself during a campus interview.

this ridiculous email shows why I hated law school. If this broad had some stones, she'd tell the kids to shut up and worry about themselves instead of this nonsense. Now some poor schmuck has to schlep down to buttfuck to mea culpa to a bunch of self obsessed dickheads. when i was interviewing with a prominent firm, the dude told me how he hated the fact that women got jobs there and then went on maternity leave two years out, then invariably quit. Know what I did? Nothing, cause who cares? His opinion, not mine. If an interviewer told me to my face that he hated my race, I'd tell him to fuck off and go blow sheep, but I wouldnt rat to the law school about it. Just poor taste. Someone whould out this puke kid who ratted.

11:53 -- Context is important, sure, but I really doubt anyone would be that up in arms if a partner was just citing the facts about some case.

Janice Rogers Brown - the right wing wacko - wants people to be able to say whatever they want in the workplace.

Talk about right wing Judicial activism.

Didn't Lat praise Judge Brown?

She is NUTS and an extremist - and everyone knows it.

I was personally offended at not getting a F&J interview at all. And I'm white. And male. But I go to a Tier 2 school.

David,

To be sure, this is an ugly story. However, your tasteless photo selection is needlessly gratuitous. We are all aware of of how awful the "n-word" is. You don't need to hit us over the head with it.

You have been a little tone deaf in recent weeks. What happened to all the good-natured fun?

"the n word"? Are we in kindergarden? Context is very important. If the guy wasn't using the word, but was just attributing it to a character in a story, it can make for a powerful story.

Making words taboo to the point when even discussing the word, adults have to say "the n word" to not cause controversy is idiotic. We all know the word. Can't we be adults and think critically instead of being offended by everything?

Lat --

Yet another, increasingly frequent, example of your poor form and judgment. Great story, but pull the photo or the caption.

If the partner is coming coming soon, we should have a name! Get us the name!

politically karrekt -- "His opinion, not mine." This isn't some guy's private opinion he's sharing in the basement with his friends; it's a recruiting officer, and so the "his opinion, not mine" line doesn't work. It's more than just "poor taste"; it's about the criteria used to recruit and retain top talent, and if either of those criteria is questionable, then it's in everyone's interest to know. Especially if that criteria is bigoted, which no one should tolerate. You think some forms of bigotry are fine, even in the employment context; most people do not, and laws are set up accordingly.

Can you imagine being a member of the Federalist society? Those people are vile.

Can you imagine stepping into a room with those people. What a huge barf factor. And I am Conservative on many issues!

eeehhhwwwww

Obviously a stupid move on the partner's part (regardless of context), but for Duke to refer to this as an "ongoing situation" that calls for a student body meeting seems more than a little bit hysterical.

Lat, yeah, the pic seems pretty gratuitous.

I disagree that context is all that important. It doesn't seem like most people are at such a loss for things to talk about with a complete stranger (particularly a person that they are supposed to be "recruiting") that they would find it necessary to tell any story the "context" of which would require them to say the n-word. It sounds like a case of pretty poor judgment to me, even under the best case scenario -- whatever that might be.

David,

I join in the sentiments that the picture you posted, while timely, is completely unnecessary. Let's not perpetuate others' stupidity by repeating this hateful & ignorant word (even if with implicit disapproval).

12:05, I am 11:53. I think that the conversation on this thread about the richards photo (e.g., 12:00, the last 12:06) demonstrates just how up in arms people can get about seemingly harmless attributions of "the n word" to others.

Given the way people here are reacting to the Richards caption is it really outside the realm of possibility that someone failed to appreciated the distinction between use and attribtuion and overreacted to an innocuous *attribution* of "the n word" to a character in the story?

If the partner is not African-American, then he should not have used the n-word. Period. White people should never use the word, even when it's being attributed to someone else. Never use the word. Ever. Under any circumstances.

David,

I join in the sentiments that the picture you posted, while timely, is completely unnecessary. Let's not perpetuate others' stupidity by repeating this hateful & ignorant word (even if with implicit disapproval).

When I interviewed with F&J the partner went off on how he thought a former all-male prep school was going down hill since it let in girls. He shared this opinion after I told him my daughter had formerly ttended this school.

Obviously a stupid move on the partner's part (regardless of context), but for Duke to refer to this as an "ongoing situation" that calls for a student body meeting seems more than a little bit hysterical.

Lat, yeah, the pic seems pretty gratuitous.

That caption is from the TMZ.com video that is linked to "pulled a Michael Richards." It was not added by Lat.

12:12 -- Poor judgment, sure. Context not all that important? I disagree. What if the student asked about the partner's most memorable pro bono case, as a poster above suggested? and that case involved an ugly hate crime, or something along those lines. It's an ugly word, an ugly crime, and the firm rose to the occasion, etc. etc. -- there, the context makes a huge difference. And yeah, maybe not the best judgment to whip out the "n" word in a 10-minute meet-and-greet, but this big hoopla strongly suggests the context wasn't even a close case.

David,

I join in the sentiments that the picture you posted, while timely, is completely unnecessary. Let's not perpetuate others' stupidity by repeating this hateful & ignorant word (even if with implicit disapproval).

Take these anecdotes as you will but here's some experiences:

At a recruiting event, a partner was speaking with me (an asian) and two other white males about his time in the navy during world war II. He then proceeded to tell this story: Whenever him and his buddies were bored, they would go into town (while stationed in Japan) with fake hand grenades, "throw them at the Japs to see them jump."

Same partner interviewing a friend: Oh, you're Filipino? What do you think about mail order brides? I heard you hate japs too.

Another partner at a big firm during an on campus interview: I once made the mistake of hiring this Korean girl. After two years she left. I think she went to open a dry cleaners, or whatever they do. Do you plan on doing the same?

I got more

The Dean says that the law school does not tolerate discrimination by employers, but then why is JAG also interviewing on campus? Using the "n-word" in an obscure context during an interview is intolerable discrimination but refusing to employ someone on account of their sexual orientation is not discrimination??

Why do people even care about this? People say stupid things all the time.

Religious and social conservatives pushed hard for the American internment of Japanese during world war II.

Do not trust religious and social conservatives.

They are authoritarian, rigid, and fearful. It is a shared personality trait.

I cannot beleive david allowed the N-word to be posted on his blog. How can we censor him on his own blog? It is almost as if he said it. It is so offensive a word that saying the phrase "N-Word" is now offensive.

You have got to be kidding. How can a word destroy careers and tarnish a law firm? And why are we trying to censor people all the time? And how the hell did the Federalist society and Brown get dragged into this discussion?

>

Apparently their non-discrimination policy has a price; they can bar the military, but they would also lose federal funding, courtesy of the SCOTUS 1 or 2 years ago.

Regarding the context argument, even if we generously assume that the partner was talking about a pro bono civil rights case-- an assumption that seems completely unsupported by the Duke email-- there's still no justification for actually using the offensive word when a euphemism would have worked just as well. Would we expect a partner interviewing a potential recruit to discuss a sexual harassment suit in which an employer allegedly referred to a female employee as, let's say, a "fucking bitch," without euphemizing the language? It's just bad taste, and not justifiable in any context.

F&J should be forced to raise starting salaries in all of their offices to at least $200K to show proper remorse!

Using the "n-word" is profoundly disrespectful.

You can use it - but be man enough to suffer the consequences. Take personal responsibility for your actions - verbal actions.

12:14: hypocritical much?

there is no question that it's bad taste. the question is whether the FJ partner is just stupid or whether he is a racist.

I cannot beleive david allowed the N-word to be posted on his blog. How can we censor him on his own blog? It is almost as if he said it. It is so offensive a word that saying the phrase "N-Word" is now offensive.

You have got to be kidding. How can a word destroy careers and tarnish a law firm? And why are we trying to censor people all the time? And how the hell did the Federalist society and Brown get dragged into this discussion?

I would still work at F&J... rascist or not

HOW DOES THIS INCIDENT AFFECT ME AND MY CHANCES OF GETTING A BIGLAW JOB?

Verbal behavior has consequences - be man enough to accept those consequences.

Using words that are profoundly disrespectful and hateful even if in the context of telling a story is ignorant.

No amount of "divaism" excuses this one. By posting that picture, you've put yourself on the same level as the F&J partner, in my book. Take it down.

WHO IS IT????

We need to find this out so Lat can plaster his picture all over the place.

CENSOR LAT,

Words = verbal behavior

I propose we banish another dirty word--one that inspires divisiveness and resentment--"diversity" and replace it with "equality"--all people are treated the same regardless of race, ethnicity, national origin, etc.

seriously, c'mon Duke Law students -- spill it (you can do it anonymously, you know): who's the partner and what exactly did he say?

That caption is from the TMZ.com video that is linked to "pulled a Michael Richards." It was not added by Lat.

========================

Noone is accusing Lat of aggravating things by *adding* the caption to the Richards photo. Rather, comments about the photo make clear that notwithstanding the picture's origin, it is simply inappropriate for this space.

SURELY, there is another picture of Michael Richards -- during the same performace or not-- unmarred by that terrible word (which appears TWICE in the current photo, no less).

Thanks, David.

The photo is pretty indecipherable without the caption. But whatever.

The photo is pretty indecipherable without the caption. But whatever.

Posted by: Not Easily Offended | February 21, 2007 12:48 PM

====================

Not really. Just follow the link -- which is hypertexted in bright red, right next to the photo.

Must be a serious problem at Duke. You couldn't pick these up at my law school's career center.

http://www [Dot] law.duke [Dot] edu/career/pdf/discriminationcomplaintform.pdf

I don't see what two big ole yellow spelled-out versions of the word are necessary to accompany this post.

We all know the Michael Richards story. A pic of him would have done just fine.

I think we should require the media to come up with euphemisms for every word that people find offensive. Better yet, we should outlaw the use of these offensive words.

Ahh, i see you trimmed it. Nice.

12:38,

Diversity = equality. But some people don't like equality either.

Maybe you should examine WHY the word "diversity" bothers you so much.

Look inside yourself first, clean house, and then preach.

politically karrekt -- I too was informed by an older male partner in an interview that he thought it was a waste of money for firms to hire women because they "repay the firm" by leaving to have babies. For me, that was a good signal that the particular firm was wrong for me, but I did not report it to my career services department. Personally, I'm not sure that I would have kept the n-word reference to myself -- although I agree with some of the posters that Duke may be blowing the importance of the comment to their entire student body out of proportion. It just seems to me that after recent events, anyone with common sense should know how incredibly offensive it is to many people for anyone -- black or white -- to use the n-word in any context. It's not that hard not to say it in a recruiting context. Period. Perhaps it shouldn't be said any other time as well, but I don't think that a political correctness debate is necessary to determine whether this guy made a mistake.

It's really funny how Lat's penchant for pushing useless buttons and divaishness (sic) turned the thrust of this post from the issue at hand to one over his actions or lack of actions. Oh, Lat!

Would top school grads be more offended at being called that or a tier 2 student?

ATL is a tabloid. Of course it's going to push buttons and do things that some (many) people find tasteless.

If you want the same info without the button-pushing, stick to the WSJ Law Blog and/or How Appealing.

I would be very offended if you called me the 2-word.

12:53,

Nobody is suggesting that the use of words should be outlawed - except for screaming "fire" in a crowded theater, etc.

But people should take responsibility for their verbal actions.

If you act in a disrespectful manner expect to be called on it.

If you want to be verbally or physically abusive - do so inside your own house.

Many thanks for trimming it, Lat. Nice to see that you're still in touch with those who make your site so popular.

Perhaps one of the many people who seems to think that attributing "the n word" to a character in a story is unacceptable in any context would be kind enough to explain why.

To get you started, I'll explain why, at first blush, the harm seems to me to depend on the context:

It seems like the main harm of epithets is that they carry with them hatred toward a particular group. So, when someone calls someone an epithet, he seems to be saying something like "you're a member of this group and I despise you for it because this group is less worthwhile". When someone mentions the epithet, however, he isn't endorsing that view of the group at all. Often, in fact, he's using the epithet to calla ttention to someone else's morally reprehensible views.

Admittedly, I haven't thought through all the angles, so I'd love to hear someone else's thoughts on this.

"After all, if it was about, as you say, 'a pro bono case the partner worked on which a victim was attacked and called the n word,' then we might hesitate before smearing F&J's good name."

Agreed. I'm on the "depends on the context" side of this issue.

Lat, maybe you should run a contest for worst/most offensive comments made in recruiting interviews? It seems like there are some good stories out there . . .

"This incident creates an opportunity to restate that the law school does not tolerate offensive or discriminatory conduct behavior by employers, whether occurring during interviews, mock interviews or summer employment."

Well, with the caveat of military recruiters and sexual orientation discrimination.

David,

Thank you for this story. I have a very similar and hurtful story to share on this topic.

One night when I was an eager law student, I attended a recruiting dinner with a partner from one of the most prestigious firms in town. It was me, my boyfriend, the partner and his wife.

The partner had a few glasses of wine and I guess he lost his filter while telling a crude story. I became very offended at what he said, so much so that I couldn't control myself and protested. I told him that I wasn't comfortable with his story and asked him to stop.

To my shock he wasn't phased one bit! He looked at me straight in the eye and with a cold gleam which haunts me to this said "How dare you talk to me that way? You're nothing but a filthy tier 2."

I was in shock. Thankfully my boyfriend got up and we excused ourselves. I wished to never remember this horrible event but it haunts me to this day. Every day at work I worry that this is how my peers view me. All because of one jerk said twenty five years ago.

So people please consider the words you use and the effect they can have on others.

Biglaw partner

quick question. how many of you whitie or asian posters grew up in a predominantly non-white or non-asian, respectively, neighborhood? And if so, please regale us with your pleasant experiences of same (if you had any).

Does the Duke library ban all books that contain objectionable language?

This is clearly neither offensive or inappropriate. He is a lawyer recounting a story. He quoted someone else, not to offend anyone, but to relay the facts. If people are so sensitive and ignorant as to not be able to distinguish between this and Michael Richards' rant, we should just ignore them, because they enslave the rest of us. If they feel this way about the "n-word", then why can't they control the rest of our vocabulary? I agree we should be considerate of one another. But this poor guy wasn't calling anyone anything. Context matters.

what's comical is that we could have predicted the school with 99% confidence w/o being told.

anywho,

a) context obviously matters. should we erase history?

b) stupid choice by the partner but nobody was injured except for the glass managerie student

c) thanks to the tattle-tale, we have to go through a whole charade where everybody has a scripted role: partner deeply upset with self, firm not tolerating, duke doesn't condone blah blah blah

But what about black teenagers who call each other "Nig_ers"?

I hear the word used all the time here (blacks on blacks) in NYC.

One day this sort of incident will be looked back on with curiosity, if not amusement. The "N word" is just a word. Words are not crimes. Unless the partner was saying it directly to a law student, intending it as a pejorative, I don't think this is news and Duke should be ashamed of their reaction.

Even though the partner was just relaying a story, and probably had no discriminatory animus, I do think he made a huge mistake in this respect: Law school students are in large part hyper-sensitive, politically-correct, humorless creatures that love to revel in these types of controversies. Of course the "offended" Dukie was going jump all over his statements.

Sitting here in my office listening to a little music as I slave away, it occured to me that the partner may have been making some literary reference or quoting a song, etc.

For example, the song that was ironically just playing my office via the random play Media Player- Bob Dylan's Hurricane:

"And to the black folks he was just a crazy n*****.
No one doubted that he pulled the trigger"

If in fact he was quoting Dylan, the greatest poet of our time, then he shouldn't have to apologize. Maybe he was telling the recruit about how their firm was involved in the Ruben "Hurricane" Carter case.

Sitting here in my office listening to a little music as I slave away, it occured to me that the partner may have been making some literary reference or quoting a song, etc.

For example, the song that was ironically just playing my office via the random play Media Player- Bob Dylan's Hurricane:

"And to the black folks he was just a crazy n*****.
No one doubted that he pulled the trigger"

If in fact he was quoting Dylan, the greatest poet of our time, then he shouldn't have to apologize. Maybe he was telling the recruit about how their firm was involved in the Ruben "Hurricane" Carter case.

1:51,

What about social and religious conservatives that call each other Christofacists?

What about blacks that call each other Uncle Tom?

Is it OK to call Janice Rogers Brown, Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice Uncle Toms?

2: 13 wrote:

"Common sense tells you it has a different meaning when a white person uses it versus a black person. Same with the "F-word" - some gays use this word. I don't because I think it is hate directed towards oneself or other gays.

The N-word and the F-word have power because it implies that the speaker of the word knows everything there is to know about you and that what they know is that you are dirty and lower than low."

I am not convinced that a white person using the N word is any different from a black person using the N word to another black person.

Oh no - all of the sudden the religious and social conservatives want to censor us if if call certain blacks Uncle Toms, or refer to certain religious groups as hate groups [which some clearly are].

Maybe the people who think that it's ridiculous to get fired up about someone using the n-word should find a way to work this story into their next conversation with their boss or recount it to someone loudly in a public place. Make sure not to pretty it up by replacing what was actually said with the "kindergarden" version. If any of you who think that this comment was no big deal would think twice about taking my suggestion, then maybe you can accept that his comment was both dumb and that it would not be considered appropriate in most contexts. Those of you who seem intent on turning this into a debate over how repressed our society is thanks to the concepts of political correctness and -- gasp -- etiquette sound just as ridiculous as the people you are criticizing for being too sensitive or too easily offended.

Lat,

Thanks for taking the caption off the photo. I might not agree with everything you do on this site, but I appreciate that you're responsive to your readers.

in a haze these days
i pull up to the stoplight
i can feel that something's not right
i can feel that someone's blasting me
with hate and bass
sending dirty vibes my way
cause my great great great great grandad
made someone's great great great great grandaddy slaves
it wasn't my idea
it wasn't my idea
it never was my idea
i just drove to the store
for some preparation h

ya'll don't know what it's like
being male, middle class and white
it gets me real pissed off and it makes me wanna say
fuck

It's interesting-- this reminds me of the Issiah Washington gaff at the Golden Globes, when he used the "f" word again when saying that he had never used it to describes co-star Knight... obviously a lie but he was denounced for using it yet again in his denial. I think the partner was an idiot for using the word, but given the context I think it hardly ranks as racism. Stupidity more like it.

2:34

I suggest that you read Strunk and White's Elements of Style. Then please revise and resubmit your entry.

Why? So that I can understand your post.

Two points.

1) Duke Law is very serious about discrimination. Jag is permitted to interview with Duke Law students; however, the school sends this nice email about how evil they are right before the students place their bids for interviews. My year I believe Jag had two interviews. Duke is a very liberal law school and people there are probably in an uproar over this situation (I would be to frankly). Assuming that the use of this particular word was not in some law-appropriate, civil rights litigation context, I think the partner in question should be asked to leave or Duke Law should prohibit the firm from interviewing at the school.

2) One of the reasons Duke can be so hard core on these issues is that most years the law school has a 100% placement rate. Before graduation the vast majority of us had more than 2 offers. Duke grads have at least a little market power (just like grads of other top schools). IMHO it's very important for those who do have the ability to object to this intolerable behavior to do so.

http://www.law.duke.edu/career/pdf/discriminationcomplaintform.pdf

Are you SURE you aren't aware of other alleged discriminatory conduct by this organization? Maybe you repressed the memory. Remember when you were really young and you got lost in the mall? I thought so. Do you have any alleged friends (including Tier 2 students*) who might be aware (without knowing it) of alleged discriminatory conduct by this organization?

*Why are you associating with Tier 2 students?

2:38,

I understood 2:34's post.

I agree with it too.

Nice parody post by "Duke Alum"!

I almost thought it was some douchemonger from Duke.

A safety-choice law school certainly does have immense market power.

Even if the partner were using the word in the context of a story - wouldn't a decent person say "n-word" instead of the actual word?

Or better yet - tell a different story. He is representing his firm at a top law school for purposing of recruiting - this is a no brainer.

Ron Mexico,

I don't think Duke is a "safety-choice" law school.

Northwestern Law Grads are more successful at getting top offers than Univ. of Chicago grads.

Have you seen some Univ. of Chicago law Grads.?

There are not exactly presentable.

Ron Mexico is a terrible QB.

Biglaw partner at 1:37. I feel your pain. Let's hope we evolve as a society to value people for who they are and not their tier.

3:11 -- so fucking true, and also why I'm still single.

Anyone else find it uncoincidental that Fulbright is flashing its NAACP-Houston's presidential award on the front-page of its website?

http://www.fulbright.com/media/flash/naacp-award/index.html

12:22: FDR and Earl Warren were "religious and social conservatives"?

Google Cache says it's a recent development.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:IvRncs3fWVQJ:www.fulbright.com/+fulbright&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

For all those "context doesn’t matter" folks, a quick Lexis search returned 2,795 federal cases containing the N-word. To avoid being hypocritical, I assume that Duke has either physically removed those pages containing the offensive word from its Supreme Court Reports, Federal Reports, and Federal Supplements or blacked out the word with a Sharpie. Perhaps West Law should start selling the "Duke Law School Reporters" in which all offensive or insensitive words are redacted. Honestly, the most embarrassing part of this story is Duke's response.

brutus,

I am talking about religious and social conservatives of 2007 - not 70 years ago.

Progressives stand for progress. As human knowledge and understanding grow [and they do so exponentially] so should human behavior.

If society does not progress it shrivels up and dies.

Down with social and religious conservatives!!!

Oh geez. People seriously don't get why it's a problem to use a word that has been an important part of the language of centuries-long systematic oppression of black people? Man, we are messed up then.

The "n" word is horrific. I'm no prude -- there are only three words I won't say: the "n" word, the "c" word, and the "f" word -- and I don't mean "fuck," which I've said numerous times in front of my own goddamned grandmother.

Why don't I say them? Because they are HARMFUL. Other "bad words" are merely a offensive, and I don't give a shit if I just "offend" someone. But using words like this reinforces racism and bigotry in a society that STILL has not overcome and eradicated oppression.

As a white person, I understand this even if I don't fully feel the brunt of the force of this word. As a woman, I have felt the brunt of the force of other words, and I can understand and empathize with why this one is so wrong.

That a law partner was enough of an idiot to use it -- not just in everyday conversation, but in a RECRUITING INTERVIEW -- is indeed cause for serious concern. I can't say this word -- I have a mental block that keeps me from saying it -- even if I'm recounting that someone else said it. If I were to tell someone about the Michael Richards story, there would be absolutely no reason/need for me to use the actual word. I could just as easily substitute "the n word" and people would know what I'm talking about. It's almost never ever necessary to use it. There is almost no context in which it is helpful or appropriate. That the law partner failed to comprehend this is a serious enough issue that the administration was right to deal with it in this manner.

P.C. Hypocrites (4:00) and others making the same inane argument,

Fine, is this better? "Within the context of an employment interview, there is no situation in which the use of the racial epithet in question could possibly be appropriate." I would think it clear that anyone arguing that "context doesn't matter" is implicitly referring to the larger context in question (i.e., a job interview), so silly references to history books and federal reporters really don't have any bearing on the point.

P.C. Hypocrites,

You think it is OK for a partner at a school's recruiting event to use the "n-word"?

If I hear another social conservative use the term "politcal correctness" one more time - I am going to start double spacing.

Some people actually believe it is important to be respectful and uh - professional - in professional environments especially with strangers.

The n-word is the worst word a person could use to describe any entire segment of the population.

It would be like the partner saying "wh*rey cu*t".

Get real.

P.C. Hypocrites,

If you do not understand the difference between a word being in a book and a partner at a recruiting event using the n-word in froint of the law students then you either have no common sense or are a right-wing extremist - or both.

As a second career law student who once worked as a recruiter for a Fortune 500, I was amazed at the questions and comments I received during my interviews. Interviewing is a business function, and it should be conducted with the appropriate decorum. As someone who is partial to using the word "fuck" in all its fantastic forms, I still know better than to bust it out in a staff meeting, interview, or church. That's not PC, it's just common sense...

I never said it was "professional" for a recruiter to use the n-word during an interview. If he was simply discussing the facts of a case and made the boneheaded mistake of actually saying the n-word that does not mean he engaged in discriminatory/racist conduct. If you don’t see a distinction between professionalism and discrimination, you are beyond hope. For Duke to circle the wagons and consider this the opportunity for an in-depth discussion on racism is absurd. But as the "Group of 88" profoundly demonstrated, Duke faculty have little interest in facts and are all about knee-jerk reactions.

To those who think that Michael Richards and this F&J partner are different, you're wrong. They both harbor racist feelings, but just expressed them differently. What was so shocking about Michael Richards was that he went on a public tirade about black people. At least in that situation, you know what you're dealing with. Modern racism doesn't hit you in the face. It may come out in subtle ways but that doesn't make it less insidious.

3L, These interviews you speak of. How did you get them?

cf. Judith Butler's _Excitable Speech_

The context in which a taboo word is used does not obviate its perlocutionary force. Indeed, the reinvocation of a harmful word in the context of an ostensibly neutral story (e.g. in a situation in which one speaks the word to condemn it) serves to reinforce the injury.

Fulbright's chairman repeatedly tells all attorneys that the firm has a policy of zero tolerance for inappropriate race-based behavior, and this behavior is egregious. Duke's recruiting office should be commended for the way they have outed Fulbright & Jaworski. One wonders whether the management will try to sweep this under the rug or will taken any real remedial action beyond any apologies made to Duke. If this partner is using racial epithets in recruiting events, he is surely using them in other contexts too.

Fulbright's chairman repeatedly tells all attorneys that the firm has a policy of zero tolerance for inappropriate race-based behavior, and this behavior is egregious. Duke's recruiting office should be commended for the way they have outed Fulbright & Jaworski. One wonders whether the management will try to sweep this under the rug or will taken any real remedial action beyond any apologies made to Duke. If this partner is using racial epithets in recruiting events, he is surely using them in other contexts too.

Fulbright's chairman repeatedly tells all attorneys that the firm has a policy of zero tolerance for inappropriate race-based behavior, and this behavior is egregious. Duke's recruiting office should be commended for the way they have outed Fulbright & Jaworski. One wonders whether the management will try to sweep this under the rug or will taken any real remedial action beyond any apologies made to Duke. If this partner is using racial epithets in recruiting events, he is surely using them in other contexts too.

Fulbright's chairman repeatedly tells all attorneys that the firm has a policy of zero tolerance for inappropriate race-based behavior, and this behavior is egregious. Duke's recruiting office should be commended for the way they have outed Fulbright & Jaworski. One wonders whether the management will try to sweep this under the rug or will taken any real remedial action beyond any apologies made to Duke. If this partner is using racial epithets in recruiting events, he is surely using them in other contexts too.

Fulbright's chairman repeatedly tells all attorneys that the firm has a policy of zero tolerance for inappropriate race-based behavior, and this behavior is egregious. Duke's recruiting office should be commended for the way they have outed Fulbright & Jaworski. One wonders whether the management will try to sweep this under the rug or will taken any real remedial action beyond any apologies made to Duke. If this partner is using racial epithets in recruiting events, he is surely using them in other contexts too.

L2L, Fulbright has 2 partners and an associate from Loyola in its LA office.

Three Loyola grads! This keeps my hope alive.

I just discovered F&J has three Loyola grads nationwide. So I have about a 0.01% chance of getting a job there. Hope fading again. Sigh.

Lat, change the pic caption before you yourself become the target of debate.

8:27 AM: That caption was changed yesterday:

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/02/breaking_fulbright_jaworski_pa_1.php

You must be looking at an old version of the post.

The idea that using the N-word regardless of circumstances automatically amounts to racial "discrimination" in employment or recruiting is illogical and is contrary to court precedent.

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes observed in Towne v. Eisner (1918) that “a word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used.”

Court rulings under the First Amendment recognize this fact. There are no forbidden words that the government can ban regardless of the circumstances in which they are used.

For example, in Hardy v. Jefferson Community College (2001), the federal appeals court in Cincinnati held that an instructor could not be terminated just for discussing the “N” word and how it was historically used to promote racism.

It may be dumb from a recruiting perspective for a law firm partner to tell a story in which a character uses the N-word, but that doesn't make it "discrimination."

The idea that using the N-word, regardless of circumstances, automatically amounts to racial "discrimination" in employment or recruiting is illogical and is contrary to court precedent.

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes observed in Towne v. Eisner (1918) that “a word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used.”

Court rulings under the First Amendment recognize this fact. There are no forbidden words that the government can ban regardless of the circumstances in which they are used.

For example, in Hardy v. Jefferson Community College (2001), the federal appeals court in Cincinnati held that an instructor could not be terminated just for discussing the “N” word and how it was historically used to promote racism.

It may be dumb from a recruiting perspective for a law firm partner to tell a story in which a character uses the N-word, but that doesn't make it "discrimination."

The idea that using the N-word regardless of circumstances automatically amounts to racial "discrimination" in employment or recruiting is illogical and is contrary to court precedent.

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes observed in Towne v. Eisner (1918) that “a word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used.”

Court rulings under the First Amendment recognize this fact. There are no forbidden words that the government can ban regardless of the circumstances in which they are used.

For example, in Hardy v. Jefferson Community College (2001), the federal appeals court in Cincinnati held that an instructor could not be terminated just for discussing the “N” word and how it was historically used to promote racism.

It may be dumb from a recruiting perspective for a law firm partner to tell a story in which a character uses the N-word, but that doesn't make it "discrimination."

P.C. Hypocrites, read again, my excitable friend. I never said the partner's statement was "discriminatory" (nor was my posting in response to whatever comment you made, for that matter.). I said the partner was unprofessional, and the word should not have been used in that context. If you're unable to read closely, perhaps there's no hope for you, hmmm?

The idea that using the N-word regardless of circumstances automatically amounts to racial "discrimination" in employment or recruiting is illogical and is contrary to court precedent.

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes observed in Towne v. Eisner (1918) that “a word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used.”

Court rulings under the First Amendment recognize this fact. There are no forbidden words that the government can ban regardless of the circumstances in which they are used.

For example, in Hardy v. Jefferson Community College (2001), the federal appeals court in Cincinnati held that an instructor could not be terminated just for discussing the “N” word and how it was historically used to promote racism.

It may be dumb from a recruiting perspective for a law firm partner to tell a story in which a character uses the N-word, but that doesn't make it "discrimination."

I'm a Duke Law 3L, but I'm no thin-skinned baby like the 1L who tattled, (please don't think we all are!). This afternoon, since F&J's mea culpa took place in the same room I was in right after a class, I hung around to hear the apology. The apology seemed sincere, and they handled it about as well as can be imagined. Many (black) students still seemed pissed off that it took a month for the career center/firm to be as public about it all as they were. To me, that's just silly.

Turns out the context was the lawyer recounting the story of named partner Jaworski himself taking on a case against the KKK in the civil rights era. Don't know exactly how the word was dropped, but given the general context, seems like it was a dumb, but not racist use. I think its a shame the firm has to do such a song & dance as a result. I'm not the only student who thinks so.

From what I understand, the partner in question was referring to a case in Texas back in the 1920s when Leon Jaworski -- who, remember, helped James Meredith enter the University of Mississippi -- defended a black man accused of murder. The story was told in the context of the racial prejudices that Jaworski faced at the time. That makes a big difference to me versus, say, an off-hand comment.

This does not surprise me as I met F&J at HLS during the fall recruiting season and I have to say they were the firm that gave me the worst vibe out of the dozens that I met.

The firm spits out AA lawyers like bad tasting fish (including a fairly recent grad of Duke). 4 partners who are AA in a firm of 1000 lawyers. A women's initiative committee that doesn't meet with the women and a diversity committee that has never met with it's minority lawyers.

Honestly, this firm has a big reputation among minority and women law students for being racist and discriminatory.

This incident is just one of several I've heard of.

every fall recruiting person at my school hated the F&J interviewers...and were fine with everyone else. that tells you something.