Who was the attorney in the interview? Come on, some one's go to know.

That Duke is overreacting is an understatement. These "training interviews" were clearly intended to bring across the realities of the legal world to inexperienced students, and a lawyer telling war stories is completely appropriate to that. It is like in high school where a teacher might have to say "the s-word", while in college, a prof could say shit, because grown up people can deal with it--and obviously there is a difference if the professor is recounting a passage in a book, rather than saying the students are shit. Law school is even more so, as preparation for the real world. Should a witness say "the n-word?" in testimony? I am sure lawyers (at least on one side of a case) would want the full enormity of the word itself displayed to the jury. Should a court opinion say "the n-word" in place of what was really said? Sometimes, nothing brings across the reality of a situation like what was really said. For a lawyer to talk to a law student as if he or she was in high school would be ridiculous, even insulting, and would run contrary to the whole purpose of these interviews. If you practice in criminal law, you are going to hear and see much worse than the n-word. How ironic that Fulbright & Jaworski find themselves in this position, when their partner was describing their commitment to racial justice going back to the 1920s--well before it was a cause celebre in this country, and well before Duke gave a crap (if they really do now). How you take such offense as this Duke student did is beyond me. However, what the law school is doing is an even bigger exercise in stupidity. It undermines real racial sensitivity to engage in this circus over such a nonevent. Sorry about the length of the post, but this really burns my cookies.

so if the N word is relevant to the story because it refers to the defense of a client suffering from racial discrimination in the 1920's then its inappropriate?

This is clearly PC gone wrong.

David,

Thank you for this story. This event brings back bad memories for me.

One night when I was a young 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.

We were all having a great time until the partner had a few glasses of wine and I guess lost his filter. He told a very crude and offensive 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.

Confirmation that law students are hypersensitive and law professors are completely out of touch with life in the real world.

What about the plight of us poor tier 2 students? A tier 2 like me has to face a lot more adversity than a top school african american.

I think this is ridiculous. The attorney was merely detailing the facts of the case; it's no different than summarizing the facts of the case in a brief. On one hand it's great to see that the "n" word is so anathema that mentioning it in any context is revulsive. On the other hand, context DOES matter, and recounting the facts of a case -- in which the attorneys are the "good guys" -- seems like a safe harbor to me.

Get over it, or I will start taking offense every time I see a commercial or advertisement for Ritz Crackers.

Note that very few Duke Law faculty (exception: James Coleman) said anything when three lacrosse players got railroaded by a black accuser and a renegade DA.

This is hypocrisy in action.

F&J is on dangerous territory talking about how great Jaworski was for civil rights.

http://www.houstonpress.com/2006-06-22/news/rush-to-judgment/

"In World War II, Houston attorney Leon Jaworski prosecuted a group of black American soldiers. In a hurried-up trial, they were court-martialed and sentenced to hard labor. The verdict was probably wrong. And Jaworski had a lot to do with that."

A Duke African American still has it better than a tier 2 student. What about African Americans at tier 2 schools? Why doesn't anyone care about them?

Uh, excuse me Mr. Mous, A.N.E., did you just call me a cracker?!

Uh, excuse me Mr. Mous, A.N.E., did you just call me a cracker?!

David,

Can we PLEASE get an expose on the looney probate judge in the ANS case!?

I take back my comments from yesterday.

Duke is totally overreacting.

This is the one context in which it is appropriate to sue the n-word and I jumped to conclusions.
Imagine that!

Uh, excuse me Mr. Mous, A.N.E., did you just call me a cracker?!

Loyola 2L,

Are you studying?

Not to mess with your already shaky self-esteem but - are you at Loyola Chicago, L.A., or New Orleans?

Which one is the "best"?

dook sux as per usual. go heels.

dook sux as per usual. go heels.

Of course I study. Although I don't know why I waste more time on this worthless degree. I should drop out and get a job.

They three Loyolas are equal. Top 10% get good jobs the rest don't.

The use of the word, even in that context, was inappropriate. A white person should NEVER use that word in a professional setting (period). However, this is not blatant racism and the Dean overreacted.

However, can you blame her? She had to stand up for the student and it seems some faculty were upset as well. The real culprits are all of us, including myself, who developed a negative view of things before hearing the facts.

Why is it OK to deny people opportunities and treat them differently because they went to a tier 2 school, but not OK to treat people differently because of their race?

I think *both* practices are wrong.

"The use of the word, even in that context, was inappropriate. A white person should NEVER use that word in a professional setting (period)."

Are you implying that it's okay for a non-white person to use that word? Personally, I think that in retelling a story, you have license to retell the damn story. The word being used was used as an illustrative point and no one should be obligated to self-censor if they don't want to do so. (I'm tempted to refer to the word here, but figure that my comment would be deleted).

And the Dean overreacted, but it's just the latest example of administrative ineptitude. Anyone who attended and/or graduated from the law school in the last 7 years could see this coming from a mile away. "The admin jumping to conclusions!?! What a surprise!"

This is a really brilliant marketing strategy by Fulbright. Duke's overreaction will get a lot of sympathy for Fulbright, not just at Duke, but at law schools all over. Could this all have been intentional, knowing the heightened sensitivities at Duke?

This is a really brilliant marketing strategy by Fulbright. Duke's overreaction will get a lot of sympathy for Fulbright, not just at Duke, but at law schools all over. Could this all have been intentional, knowing the heightened sensitivities at Duke?

yeah the partner should have known that its better to never use that word. However, my god this is an overreaction

I don't know the whole story and none of us know all of the facts, but if the facts contained in F&L Executive Committee's letter are true, then this student was hyper-sensitive has a lot to learn. There is a critical difference between historical references and opinion-based comments. Simply because a word is distasteful and inappropriate does not render every utterance of that word offensive. The lawyer here appears to have done nothing really wrong. Can't anyone see that?

It's amazing how easily you can get lumped in with the rest of everybody. Not only are law students hypersensative, but they also love to leap to conclusions or overly broad generalizations.

As a "Dook" 3L, I can say that I personally feel the use of the word in that context isn't that bad. I can't speak for the person who it was said to, who was obviously a little bit offended.

Anyways, the situation was handled poorly in several respects. 1) The lawyer who made the comment is the worst. A partner in such an established firm should be able to read people well enough to tell who would or would not be offended by the telling of that story. 2) The person who brought this to the school's attention is almost as bad. This situation should have been handled privately, maybe by emailing the partner later saying something along the lines of "what you said offended me, be careful who you say what to in the future."

Once Duke was notified I don't think they handled it any differently than another top 10-15 law school. In fact, Duke didn't do much other than put the student body on notice that it had happened. No worse than what this website is doing, except that the Duke community is obviously more limited than this website. You simply can't punt on racial issues; when someone brings an issue like this to a schools attention there has to be some kind of reaction. The problem is this never should have been brought to Duke's attention - it should have been handled privately between the storyteller and the student.

I think my colleague (11:35) is mostly correct, however the administration providing us with this information was not a bad move on their part.

They provide the information to us and it is up to us to decide what we want to do with it. If you no longer want to go to Fulbright events, fine. If you want to ignore that this happened because you don't think it is that serious, fine.

Hiding the information from Duke students is not the answer. However, publishing the information on this website to the broader legal community, that's not Duke's call.

As a duke alum of the last 7 years, I have to disagree with 11:22 Another Duke Alum's complaint about the administration. I don't really see an overreaction on the part of the administration. They responded to a complaint that was lodged by a student. It appears that they followed the protocol outlined for following up on such a complaint by contacting Fulbright. Dean Bartlett sent out an e-mail explaining what happened (or at least generally so). There is nothing in the information that has been released to indicate that the school plans to ban Fulbright, or that they overreacted in any way. Fulbright has chosen to send some partners to talk to student about what happened.

As Another Duke 3L said, if people want to think the person who complained overreacted, that's one thing. But I find it difficult to see how the administration has overreacted in any way to this situation.

JUST IMAGINE IF THE LAX TEAM HAD USED THE "N-WORD."

Loyola 2L,

What is that you really want to do with your life?

If it is not to practice law then finish law school - since you have come this far - and then do something different.

Umm, the LAX team DID use the n-word.

Duke is on a huge downward spiral. After Duke's giving no support and suspending thier students who were falsely accused of rape and now this. What a joke of a university. Duke deserves to be shamed and shunned.

Holding school-wide meetings with students to discuss ONE partner's use of an offensive word (in an probably legitimate context) is NOT an overreaction by the Duke Law administration? Come on.

I am not a Duke alum, but I must say Dean Bartlett often says really stupid things. Every Duke Law grad I have met has left the school quite unimpressed with her.

Reminds me of the scene from Monty Python - The Life of Brian, where a mob has formed to stone someone who has said "Jehova". However, the "judge" in charge of the mob gets stoned instead because he can't explain why saying "Jehova" is wrong withouth saying the word "Jehova".

Pretty much any use of the n-word is unwise (note: not "wrong" or "immoral") in a professional context because it's such a powerful word. But I always get uneasy when people talk about an absolute prohibition on any "word": the "n-word", in the abstract, isn't the problem-- rather the problem is the intent (and actions) behind the word, or the climate that it can create.

Holding school-wide meetings with students to discuss ONE partner's use of an offensive word (in an probably legitimate context) is NOT an overreaction by the Duke Law administration? Come on.

I am not a Duke alum, but I must say Dean Bartlett often says really stupid things. Every Duke Law grad I have met has left the school quite unimpressed with her.

Duke is on a huge downward spiral. After Duke's giving no support and suspending thier students who were falsely accused of rape and now this. What a joke of a university. Duke deserves to be shamed and shunned.

Now that it is settled that the hyper-sensitive law student and Duke overreached, lets get back to what is really important - Fulbright & Jaworski is still on the List of Shame. F&J, stop being niggardly with your associate salaries!

Duke is on a huge downward spiral. After Duke's giving no support and suspending thier students who were falsely accused of rape and now this. What a joke of a university. Duke deserves to be shamed and shunned.

David, seriously, get on the judge in the Anna Nicole case. Has anybody else been watching the footage available court tv extra? This judge is a riot!!

Me at 12:14 said "Holding school-wide meetings with students to discuss ONE partner's use of an offensive word (in an probably legitimate context) is NOT an overreaction by the Duke Law administration? Come on."

Here's what the e-mail from Dean Bartlett said, "As part of its remediation efforts, a partner at the law firm has asked to come to Duke to meet with students to describe the incident, to apologize to the community publicly, and to explain the measures that the firm has taken. Bruce Elvin has arranged for this meeting to take place tomorrow, February 22, at 4:30, in Room 3041."

It was Fulbright who asked for the meeting, and the administration who set the meeting up. Again, I ask, how is this an overreaction on the part of the administration?

The duke law alums that I know, for the most part, are quite impressed with Dean Bartlett. But obviously some aren't. I guess I'm somewhat curious about what "really stupid things" Me, a non-duke law alum knows of Dean Bartlett saying "often"?

David, seriously, get on that judge in the Anna Nicole Smith hearing!! Has anybody else been watching the proceedings? This guy is a riot!!

This is nowhere near the same as saying the word in the context of use for maximum impact in a trial setting. Any partner who isn't a complete idiot should know that you don't use this word in a recruiting setting, PERIOD. It IS a harmful word, even when used in the (very very very rare) proper context. And the proper context is never ever ever EVER when you're trying to recruit someone. Law firms are notorious for their racism. It does not take a huge leap of reasoning for a black student to hear that vile word come from the lips of a biglaw partner and wonder if that firm TRULY has a commitment to racial diversity. Any IDIOT knows this and would therefore refrain from saying anything that could jeopardize the firm's diversity efforts.

That this is not automatically simple and obvious to people just goes to show how real-life stupid ivory towers have made us.

The comments from the dukies make me think that maybe certain people are attracted to that school. It also makes me glad I didn't go there.

Ugh! Everything I hate about politically-correct, humorless, left-wing law school students and faculty summed up in one anecdote.

Duke was a terrific place to study law; wish I could go back. Loyola 2L et al are only jealous they didn't get in.

Those interested in the topic might consider this book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0375713719/ref=dp_proddesc_0/104-3236439-1081548?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

Duke's reaction here is absurd.

Yes the partner was stupid; the risk of this sort of reaction is predictable and palpable.

That skirts the real question though. Is this sort of reaction (by the student, by the school, etc.) (1) justified and (2) productive.

I think it is neither. First, in the context, nobody could reasonably say the partner was expressing racial hatred or anything like it. Second, maintaining the status of the word as taboo maintains its power. The appropriation of the word by blacks is a positive event that should be extended not limited.

That leaves only one possibility in my mind. Because people are offended, it is offensive to use the word. That is not prima facie implausible, but seems to me this reverses the desirable order of things. We should be ruled not by people's unthinking reactions, but by good reasons and clear thinking.

Because people are offended is a good reason to be careful (that's why the partner was dumb), but it is not good reason to say that the use of the word in this context is offensive. "Offensive" has to have some content beyond what people say they are "offended" by. "Because I feel it" isn't exactly high level moral discourse, and claims of that sort make any sort of civil society impossible: the "because I feel it" street runs two ways, and because it erects an impenetrable wall if accepted, competing claims of "being offended" can't be adjudicated.

I suppose the wacky left has abandoned all pretense that moral discourse should be subject to reason (and abandoned the Enlightenment project in that respect). This is an outgrowth of that rejection.

Stop bitching 2L. I went to a 3rd-tier law school and now happily work at F & J, a firm that is committed to diversity and tolerance.

You're just a token tier 2.

No, I busted my ass in law school (law review, moot court, etc). I had an appellate clerkship and fought my way into a big firm. Token, I think not! You simply are not working hard enough!

90-95% of tier 2 grads "didn't work hard enough."

Partner should have just said "The N-Word" instead of using the word. We are all smart enough to get the point. This still shows lack of good judgment by the partner, and is a problem in a professional setting.

That may be true....But, if you personally feel cheated, do something about it, instead of whining on this blog. I just went to the website for the first time to see what the site was saying about the firm...then, I came across your ramblings and felt the need to set you straight.

This is the real L2L. You're just a house tier 2 1:40. You're an uncle tier-2-tom.

AUTHOR:
EMAIL:
IP: 71.119.248.244
URL:
DATE: 02/22/2007 01:49:33 PM

That may be true....But, if you personally feel cheated, do something about it, instead of whining on this blog. I just went to the website for the first time to see what the site was saying about the firm...then, I came across your ramblings and felt the need to set you straight.

It sounds like the law firm was Nifonged.

The idea that using the N-word, regardless of circumstances, automatically amounts to racial "discrimination" 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.

Duke Alum is right: it's just never appropriate to use the term in a professional setting. The idea that because he was "telling a story" and somehow could not possibly have avoided using the term is nonsense.

I know who the F&J partner is!!! He taped his daughter expressing similar sentiments. It is posted here: http://www.break.com/index/little_racist_girl.html

I love how PC society has become that we now have to say "n word," even when using the term in context. What happens if I say it - does Beatlejuice appear? Since when did it achieve magical power status? Since the whites in this country will soon be in the numerical minority, can we start to use the word as a term of recognition and familiarity like blacks currently do?

1:49 -- and then a racist asshole uses the atrocity as an excuse to throw the word around again on a law blog.

and the grande finale: all racists go to hell and burn for eternity.

Man, I can't wait for that one.

I love it... Quoting a 1920s DA = I am a racist. Beautiful. Poetic. Amusing.

2:27 -- Let me ask you, who should be more offended... Someone who was present during a conversation regarding a 1920s racist District Attorney, or someone who is called a racist asshole on a blog and then condemned to hell for voicing an opinion?

Which comment is more likely to stifle debate?

I love the hypocrisy. Amusing. Dang amusing.

2:27 -- Let me ask you, who should be more offended... Someone who was present during a conversation regarding a 1920s racist District Attorney, or someone who is called a racist asshole on a blog and then condemned to hell for voicing an opinion?

Which comment is more likely to stifle debate?

I love the hypocrisy. Amusing. Dang amusing.

I went to a 3rd-tier law school and now happily work at F & J, a firm that is committed to diversity and tolerance.

I attend a 3rd-tier law school but I think I would rather work at a firm that is committed to making money by good lawyering. Espousing a commitment to diversity and tolerance is good for marketing though.

Anonymous at 12:19 PM wrote:
"It was Fulbright who asked for the meeting, and the administration who set the meeting up. Again, I ask, how is this an overreaction on the part of the administration?"

Okay; I suppose I misread the earlier posts. But the fact that this issue became a school-wide scandal that called for a partner's meeting with students is, in fact, the doing of the law school itself. Why does the whole world know about this event? If anything, the offending partner, or any F&J partner, could have met with the "offended" student to apologize/explain, and that could have been it. But the school turned it into a school-wide fiasco. As posts on this topic have shown, plenty of students have been subject to stupid or offensive comments from lawyers during job interviews. Very few of those turned into school-wide dramas like this one.

"The duke law alums that I know, for the most part, are quite impressed with Dean Bartlett. But obviously some aren't. I guess I'm somewhat curious about what "really stupid things" Me, a non-duke law alum knows of Dean Bartlett saying "often"?"

For instance, Dean Barlett's school-wide emails and statements to the press in past years bemoaning the Law School's ranking in US News are well documented. These statements have been petty and, in my view and in the view of many Duke alumni, "very stupid." Frankly, I've had discussions with deans at other law schools who don't think very highly of her. Sorry.

This reminds me of the time I said "WGWAG" at the country club's annual dinner party. Boy was my face red!

PS: WGWAG

David,

Please post the hypersensitive law school student's picture on the site so all BigLaw firms can run screaming. This person is a walking employment discrimination lawsuit and I feel sorry for the firm that makes the mistake of hiring him/her.

Note to self - place all resumes from Duke '07 grads in recycling bin.

2:56, well, gee, let's think real hard about that one, using our brains and everything.

The offended person hearing the word used by the DA was most likely black. So s/he has committed the offense of 1) being born black and 2) being born into a country (or dragged into it against his/her will) where black people are systematically despised, abused, oppressed, and subject to random acts of violence.

Man, how presumptuous of him/her to be offended at hearing his/her race denigrated in a socio-political context that devalues his/her personhood. Really, the gall of some people.

As for the poor maligned racist asshole, all s/he did was make an inflammatory comment on a blog that was clearly intended to offend and mock those who have been legitimately hurt by its use and who protest at its prevalence and at making light of the harm it does.

Gee... yeah, who should feel more offended...

How fucking self-righteous. Get over yourself, you're not that special.

If the account related by the F&J executive committee is really what happened, this kid is hypersensitive. I would be a bit skeptical of the source, however

How is the law school causing the overreacting? It seems there is a general misunderstanding of what actually happened here. Most of the students quite simply don't care. It's not a big deal to me, or most of my friends. I didn't attend Fulbright's apology. In fact, I don't even know when or where it is/was...

The point is, the people blowing it up are mostly the same people posting in response to this article, calling Bartlett stupid (she won't even be the Dean in 2 months). To be honest, I think most of you are posting on here just because of an inner hatred you have for Duke. Well, fair enough. But still, comparing this incident to the Nifong/rape thing is ridiculous. This is just an example of something that was poorly handled by the partner and by the student. That is completely different than a prosecutor dropping the ball in a criminal case.

Just because some people are overly sensative doesn't mean all Duke students are. The school just reacted to one student's complaint and publicized it to the student body. The firm volunteered to come down here and apologize - obviously if they felt that there was nothing really wrong with what they did than they wouldn't have done that. As someone above said, it was essentially stupid for the recruiter to go anywhere near this topic. Then again, recruiters ask questions about planning for kids all the time with women, so I'm not surprised by much they do or say. It was also out of line for the student to take this to the administration.

The best solution would have been for the partner and the student to handle it privately. But if that happened than I wouldn't get to read half of the amusing comments on this site.

2:56 -- Gotta love the offensive post condemning what you consider to be offensive behavior.

A couple of questions: Ever read Hucklebery Finn? How about the book Bloods about blacks in Vietnam?

Loyola 2L,

You're a moron to equate racism with preferring top students to 2nd tier students. The latter relates to lack of achievement and accomplishment, something that's color-blind. There's nothing wrong with preferring a higher caliber student. In fact, that's the nature of the profession, and the economy as a whole. If you don't like it then I suggest you join a commune somewhere.

By the way, in regards to my post to Loyola 2L, I was specifically referring to the post at February 22, 2007 11:09 AM.

It's wrong to deny people opportunities based on race. It's wrong to judge people and deny them a chance based on the tier of their school. I'm sorry you're too much of a tierist to see that.

I should add that in addition to comprominsing my whole class's ability to find BigLaw work, I have dedicated myself to fighting the evils of tierism, wherever they may be found. USC and UCLA be warned! LLS will no longer be sidelined by tierists intent upon perpetuating a heirarchy based on intellect, hard work, and talent!

Tier 1 graduates are no more hard working or intelligent than tier 2 grads., tierist.

Blah blah blah Loyola 2L. Can you even unnnerstaan us laffin' atcha? You suck. Go back to yout Tier 2 apartment, watch you 13 inch TV and bang your fugly, Tier 2 significant other. I'll be busy counting money, polishing my BMW, and working on big-time corporate deals. Maybe I'll bang a supermodel tonight, just for kicks.

Huh? L2L, you can't even convincingly POSE as someone other than yourself, can you?

P.S. My girlfriend actually IS a model. And I drive a 6 series. All hail BigLaw!

"It's wrong to deny people opportunities based on race. It's wrong to judge people and deny them a chance based on the tier of their school. I'm sorry you're too much of a tierist to see that.

Posted by: Loyola 2L | February 22, 2007 08:17 PM"

Tierist? Are you fucking kidding me? No, calling a loser a loser isn't wrong. You went to a bad school because you were lazy, stupid, or both. Both of those attributes are routinely punished in our society. Discriminating based on race is entirely different.

08:37 PM --

Yes, there are qualitative differences between students at worse schools. If there weren't then a) you wouldn't make such stupid comments, demonstrating the flaw in your own argument, b) law firms wouldn't care about school ranking, and c) you would be able to get into a better school than Loyola.

By the way, many people working at McDonalds are hard working. Yet, for some reason, lawyers (from top schools, anyway) get paid more. Can you guess why that is?

You may write me down in OCI
With your tier 1, twisted lies,
You may trod my resume in the very dirt
But still, like dust, I'll rise.

Does my sassiness upset you?
Why are you beset with gloom?
'Cause I post like I've got oil wells
Pumping in my living room.

Just like moons and like suns,
With the certainty of tides,
Just like hopes springing high,
Still I'll rise.

Did you want to see me broken?
Bowed head and lowered eyes?
Shoulders falling down like teardrops.
Weakened by my unemployed cries.

Do my protests offend you?
Don't you take it awful hard
'Cause I laugh like I've got gold mines
Diggin' in my own back yard.

You may shoot me with your words,
You may cut me with your eyes,
You may kill me with your rejection letters,
But still, like air, I'll rise.

Out of the huts of tier 2 shame
I rise
Up from a past that's rooted in pain
I rise
Into a daybreak that's wondrously clear
I rise
I rise
I rise
I rise.

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.

9:35 Like you talk to these black students.

I'll gladly talk to any of the ones who don't find it necessary to only talk to their own.

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.