Yeah, your correspondent has undercover (or not so undercover) racist views. Pretty typical, most likely a white male. What else is new.

Thats right 11:44, pointing out any shortcoming in any minority is racist.

Of course, thats a good strategy for you to take, as the result is that we will hire you and keep you employed because you are a cost of doing business, not because you are contributing to the company.

damn, i don't feel like having this argument again! People believe and value what they choose; words can't change longstanding beliefs, only experience can.

11:44
What?! How could the correspondent be racist if s/he is only recounting the statistical data? You must be a liberal...

Look at the phrasing from the correspondent. If the 11:55's of the world don't see a problem, then you too may be racist (or just ignorant, one in the same usually). The language suggests the typical white male stereotypes against minorities and minority females.

Look, here are the facts.

1) All white people are racist whether they know it or not.

2) Black people are always smarter than whites and are incapable of committing crimes.

3) Minorities deserve the better positions as payback for past wrongs.

4) If you are against affirmative action, see # 1.

Shout down the messenger. Anyone who criticizes anything RELATED to race is a "bigot" -- and how can you respond to that?

Same thing with Pace, Chairman of JCS, who said he felt homosexuality is immoral, along with adultery. Think about that.. HE thinks it is immoral based on his religious background. Before you even come to a conclusion think about the enemy -- islamic terrorists views on homosexuality. Why have liberals never written scathing pieces calling Muslims bigots and hate-mongers based on their religious beleifs?

Is it "racist" to call someone out for being inarticulate and speaking in platitudes, when that person happens to be black? Is it "racist" to fault someone for offering testimony which is belied by the facts, when that person happens to be black? Is it "racist" to call a scowling law partner intimidating, when that person happens to be black?

I have no idea whether these people genuinely deserve the descriptions they received. But quite plausibly, they do. And if so, it quite simply is not racist to call a spade a spade when the spade happens to be a racial minority.

I can't believe you just used the term "spade." Wow.

Because it's trendy to attack Christians and not Muslims. But, there's hope. The same crew that takes that position advocates unfettered access to the US. Soon the country will be dominated by Mexicans, a mostly Catholic group. The pandering to the Mexicans will thus cause a halt to the Christian bashing. Good news?

this site is becoming like autoadmit. sad.

Sorry. Forgot the audience. What are your views so that we can all blindly agree with them, and therefore be your intellectual equal.

I am sorry it took me so long to post b/c mine dosen't have any of that Jerry Springer flavor that seems to be carrying the day but here it is anyway...

Very amusing. Wouldn't you expect a white collar criminal defense partner at a firm like Akin to be intimidating, to be able to shake opposing counsel or a timid witness with a scowl? I sure hope mine would if I ever needed one. As for the comments about her haircut...is this a people magazine blog? I'm sure there are quite a few litigators of all shades that have less hair than Ms. Roberts; and whose temperament has little to do with their hair style. And if you are so confident she and her ilk are less qualified, why would you be intimidated?

I don't have any statistical evidence to counter Prof. Sander's although he certainly has his critics. See WSJ 11/5/04, "Critics Assail Study of Race, Law Students." It might be helpful to think about the problem this way: in a purely merit based system all the top slots at top firms would be filled by people who made the grade/LSAT cut at top tier law schools. Meaning that the bright kid you sat next to undergrad who had no interest in going to law school but applied anyway b/c his grades were good enough and every able bodied man in his family for three generations was a lawyer would always beat out everyone else for the seat at law school, the seat in tiny associate office/dungeon, etc.

Is that a better system? I doubt it. Maybe minority affirmative action is one of the ways that someone with a little hustle and desire can sneak past the apathetic and overprivileged. Maybe hiring kids who work hard at 2nd tier schools is another.

But where does it stop? The point of the story is that less qualified people are given the job. It's not that people that are equally qualfied - but not from privileged backgrounds - are given the position and with a little hustle to just as well or better. If you give them affirmative action to get into a law school and they don't do as well as whites (for example, bottom 18%) why should they then be given another shot. How many chances do they get before we can say they aren't qualified?

I couldn't help but notice the general idiocy exhibited in the comments posted here by the "pro-racists", for lack of a better (or more accurate) word.

By the way, based on the comments made by readers of this website on this issue and others it must now be trendy to be an out and out racist bigot AND to act all self-righteous about it, too!

Way to go, trendsters!

I see, once again if you question anything that has a racial component, you're a racist. That really is ignorant. Think of it this way, you have a one-size-fits-all argument. Question hiring decisions, you're a racist. Question promotion decisions, you're a racist. Perhaps the problem isn't minorities being the lesser qualified group, it's the liberals. You're obviously too feeble minded to come up with anything intelligent to say, so you call others racists. I sure would hate to have you defending me. Trial dragging after arriagnment, speedy trial! Illegal search of a dwelling, speedy trial! "Don't worry about your appeal, I've got it covered. I plan on speedy trial!"

Query -- law school grades may not accurately predict how far a graduate makes it within a firm, but it does not automatically follow that other factors -- eg, personality, interview skills, whether the person worked before law school, background growing up, etc. -- that could be correlated with success in a firm would have a more "racially neutral" outcome.

I think the Akin partner wants to "game" the factors to provide a certain racial balance and that's really awful.

I wasn't racist before, but the comments on this thread are making me reconsider.

To be honest, i'm a little annoyed that they dip the standards for minorities. All it does is devalue my actual accomplishments. Everyone thinks "he got there because he's [blank]" rather than, because he's smarter, or a harder worker, etc.

I wish it were equal. Then I could laugh at all those people that think I needed extra help, and make them fetch me coffee...

We need to stop defining disadvantage solely according to race. Tier 2 students are far more disadvantaged on the market.

IMHO, the purpose of affirmative action is not to give minorities a better position as recompense for past wrongs, but rather an equal opportunity with an understanding that as a result of past wrongs minorities may not have had access to certain opportunities that non-minorities enjoy either as the result of actual racism or (more likely) their socioeconomic status.

For example, take two equally intelligent men: one white, one black. The African-American as a percentage of his race is more likely to have been born into poverty. Consequently, he may not have had access to the same, quality public education as a white person (who is more likely to have been born into the middle class). Given what might have been a substandard primary/secondary education and the need for a job while in school, he may have found it more difficult to get into and do as well at a prestigious university and subsequently, get into and do as well at a prestigious law school. Thus our equally intelligent men will be perceived to have different skills and abilities, not because they are not equally capable, but rather because they had different opportunities.

(Certainly this isn't true of every minority. There are many minorities that come from wealthy families and many non-minorities who come from poor families.)

This is why we have affirmative action: to level an unlevel playing field caused by slavery and racism and perpetuated by a systematic problem with our educational system. Would we need it if we had equivalent public schools and equal access to financial resources for higher education? Probably not. But that sort of pragmatic approach is about as likely as pigs flying.

Huh. So we care about how the women look, but no commentary on the men's appearance? I guess because the men had important things to say, whereas the women only offered "platitudes." Because, you know, EVERYONE KNOWS that black people and women are inherently less qualified for everything except slavery and baby-makin'!

Lat, you need better tipsters. Like, maybe some who aren't racist misogynist assholes.

Well then why not just apply standards based on income, a measurable statistic, rather than apply generalizations to an entire demographic of people that "may" or "may not" have been "disadvantaged"

white male associates are still the most likely to stick around and make partner. maybe it's because they're more qualified, or maybe they have more in common with the good ol' boy network making the decisions.

look who's (still) in power in this country. affirmative action has not effectively countered white/straight/male privilege, and the only people benefiting from it are liberals looking to assuage their white guilt and fox news pundits looking for another reason to promote fear and intolerance.

i agree with 01:47 PM. as a black queer woman, i've found certain people attribute all of my successes to affirmative action. the truth is that i'm just smarter than you are.

To respond to 1:54 a bit...

When AMCAS (the med school version of LSAC) did a study on MCAT scores based on income, whites from families with income below $30K did better than blacks with incomes above $80K.

Do you really think the people with incomes above $80K went to crappier schools than those with income below $30K?

1:58:

What are "standards based on income"?

It seemed like the description of personal appearance was for Lat's benefit. ("The black law firm partner was very intimidating — thin with extremely short hair and a take-no-s***-from-anyone scowl, you would have liked her . . . .") Lat seems to have a thing for black women that fit this description (see Shanetta Cutlar).

White law students generally feel entitled to biglaw jobs because . . .well white privilege and entitlement. It is hard for them to fathom the benefits of diversity, b/c well . . .it's scary and in some instances may mean they actually have to work hard at something other than announcing their pedigree to anyone that is listening.

Question: Assuming that the good folks reading this blog consider themselves intelligent, how does the assumption that all minorities at law firms aren't numerically qualified to be there equate to sound logic?

White law students generally feel entitled to biglaw jobs because . . .well white privilege and entitlement. It is hard for them to fathom the benefits of diversity, b/c well . . .it's scary and in some instances may mean they actually have to work hard at something other than announcing their pedigree to anyone that is listening.

Question: Assuming that the good folks reading this blog consider themselves intelligent, how does the assumption that all minorities at law firms aren't numerically qualified to be there equate to sound logic?

What about Latinos vs. Asians? The former gets preferences whereas the latter doesn't. Did those groups have an unequal playing field?

Misogynist means that you hate women. Clearly the comments made were from a person that cares enough to pay attention to the partner's hard work in making herself look pretty so that she can land herself a good man. I wonder if she was barefoot?

No group is more disadvantaged than a tier 2 student.

Ciation, 2:06?

2:06:

I guess your implication is right: blacks are just dumber, huh?

Loyola 2L: okay, we get your point. Now, STFU!

2:06, income doesn't explain everything. Plain old racism explains a lot too. If a black kid applies for a job, people don't see his parents' income. They see his skin color. And if they're even slightly racist (pretty much everyone, of any race, in the country is) the black kid is less likely to get the job.

So the black kid goes his whole life being kind of spit upon, downtrodden, etc. He learns to keep his expectations lower as a result. He internalizes the hate and comes to think less of himself, because other people do. Even if he's richer than some white kids.

So, yeah, makes perfect sense to me that you could have a poor white kid and an equally intelligent/capable/etc. rich black kid, and the poor white kid still does better at X.

This is 2:15.

Pardon me—do you have a citation, 2:06?

2:16, I was only pointing out that there are more disadvantaged groups in the world. Not sure why everyone else gets to talk and I have to STFU.

2:06 here, my point is not that one group is dumber than the other, 2:16, but rather that it's not all about one group being more likely in poverty.

It's the AAMC, not AMCAS -- AAMC runs AMCAS.

But try this:
http://www.aamc.org/diversity/amicusbrief.pdf

What about the problem of WHITE GIRLS WITH ASIAN GUYS!

2:06 here...again, none of you have read Sander's paper, which is based on an actual study and actual statistics rather than hand-waving like the people here. Read it, then talk.

Re: 2:06

I'm not familiar with that study, but the issue here is not merely income. The issue is socioeconomic status. Socioeconomic status includes income, but it also includes the education level of parents, parent occupation, and social status in a community. A family making $30,000 in Idaho (like friends of mine from HS) may have more opportunities and support (and more real income) than a family making $80,000 in Hawaii (where I grew up and where the public schools are among the worst in the country). Moreover, med school may or may not be a good litmus test. The broader study of minority college graduation rates suggest that socioeconomic status is a significant factor in why minorities drop out of college at much higher rates than their non-minority counterparts.

What are the benefits of diversity? I'm still seaching after all these years.

2:27, then why not base preferences on SES instead of race?

How about personal responsibility? Does that ring any bells? If you've already gotten into college, what does your past have to do with dropping out. That's a personal weakness, not historical injustice.

2:27, then why not base on SES instead of race?

Black IQ is on AVERAGE about 15-20 points lower than white IQ. (The only point in question is cause and if the gap can be shrunk.) My citation is the first link I could find on Google. This is a well-known fact to all that don't worship at the altar of multiculturalism.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/11/black-white-iq-gap-probably-stays-at.html

To build on 2:31, but make a grander point...if it's about where you started from, why not help people where they started from (with better schools, etc.) instead of granting someone a BigLaw position so that you help more people instead of just one person?

2:31,

Imagine being slightly under prepared for college level courses, working under enormous pressure to succeed (given that your family may be counting on you) and add to that the joy of needing to work one or perhaps two jobs in order to pay for your tuition, books, and rent.

For a pretty hilarious example of "the boy who cried racist" check out the archived Emui Choi article where a commentor non-jokingly accuses Lat of hating Asians because he used the term "dragon lady."

Also, not to sound ignorant, although I clearly am, does Filipino count as Asian?

2:39,

I'm reliably informed by my Filipino girlfriend that it does count as Asian.

2:37,

As I said above...that would be fabulous. Unfortunately, addressing the actual problem is about as likely as pigs flying.

2:17, from personal experience, I think you're right. Growing up, I would have been satisifed working in the MAIL ROOM of a law firm --- forget being an associate at one. I would have been satisifed simply graduating HIGH SCHOOL --- forget going on to college or law school. That's all that was expected of me; hence, that's all I expected of myself. The majority of white people who went to my law school (top 4) (and, for that matter, the majority black people) have NO idea the sort of hardship I went through (and going through) to get to the same position they often take for granted. No idea whatsoever.

And, I'm supposed to feel shameful for not graduating at the top of my law school class, or not performing as well as those who've been conditioned to perform exceptionally their entire lives? Does it not matter that I'm the very first in my family (extend family, in fact) to even graduate college, long enough law school? Does it not matter that there are certain skills that adversity teaches a person that law school exams don't test, that professors don't care about, that resumes don't show, but that do factor into being an exceptional professional?

In the end, I hesitate to condemn anyone whose shoes I haven't walked in--- especially if I've been carried around all my life.

One thing about his discussion is frightening. Someone out there still thinks that a meritocracy has been in operation. Huh? I don't buy it. I think there is some distribution of goodies that is not equitable and not (as a statistical matter) normal.

Are your really sure that those straight A's in the 3rd grade that made your application to private junior high look so good are a rock solid testament to your superior intellect? No chance the 3rd grade teacher saw a bit of herself in your chubby, dimply face and bumped up your math grade to match it up with your other performance. Who has that kind of certainty? No chance your next door neighbor had the flu the day of the SAT moving you up from the 89.9999991 percentile to the 90.000000 th saving your college application from sure doom? No chance you took 1 more seminar instead of advanced securities regulation. Hell, I know I did. That class looked tough. Please.

Your current position is only a suggestion of the real mean with more error than a George Bush spelling bee. Ease off on the vice grip; the goodies just aren't all that into you. I am a standard deviation or two away from barely being admitted to any law school or being admitted to every law school. And you are too.

KFU - I don't need to imagine. I paid for my BA, JD, and LLM myself with loans. I worked 30+ hours a week to pay for living expenses. I didn't have the benefit of minority scholarships and job fairs. So where's my golden ticket? Everything I have I've earned. Some have everything through entitlement - whether that entitlement stems from race or lineage. If you want to make sure that you stay on welfare and government entitlements, keep up the welfare attitude.

This might be the most racist comment posted so far:

"White law students generally feel entitled to biglaw jobs because . . .well white privilege and entitlement."

Congrats, GULC-anon at 2:08!

What if turns out that, on average, affirmative action replaces poorer whites and Asians with wealthier blacks?

I have never seen a study on this one way or the other, but it seems to me at least plausible that this is the case if it is true that the standardized test scores of well-off blacks tend to fall, on average, below the standardized test scores of not-so-well-off whites and Asians.

To the poster who wondered why liberals who criticized Pace because he's an intolerant bigot because of his religious beliefs don't also write "scathing pieces calling Muslims bigots and hate-mongers based on their religious beliefs" --

Fine. As a Certified Liberal, I hereby state that those who relentlessly keep one class of people down based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc., are bigots and hate-mongers, whether that person is a Christian, Muslim, Jew, or (as Rev. Lovejoy put it) "miscellaneous."

Not exactly a scathing critique, sure. But I'm tired, and it's hard to get worked up over criticizing bigots for bigotry. Just seems so obvious.

2:55,

Perhaps you should save the personal attacks for someone else. I worked a full time job during college while maintaining a perfect GPA. I had a part time job (as many hours as my law school allowed) while attending a top 10 law school and remaining in the top ten percent of my class. I know what it means to work hard.

As for a sense of entitlement...I grew up in a family that still thinks I should be at home "making" babies (their words not mine), who told me from the age of 7 that the "best" I could hope for was to marry a pastor (not that there is anything wrong with that), and never considered the possibility that I would even go to college.

I also come from a family where I am the first woman to graduate from high school without being pregnant. Not because my cousins are bad people or ignorant, but because those were the expectations placed on them.

You, 2:48, and I may have succeeded in spite of (or perhaps because of) adversity, but we are the *lucky* ones. Some people try just as hard as we did and fail.

Don't you have any sympathy for those who try and cannot succeed not because of what their own efforts, but because of something external to themselves?

Can't we all just get along?

Many clients seek to hire a lawfirm with a committment to diversity. Irrspective of the wisdom of that, it makes market sense for law firms to do what they need to do in order to recruit and retain minority atttorneys.

what if clients only want white attorneys . . . is that ok, too?

If a white liberal beleives in affirmitive action...they should put their money where their mouth is. If white person gets spot in :1) Partner, 2) Associate, 3) Harvard Law, 4) Princeton, 5) top-notch pre-school -- then give that spot up yourself - in the interest of advancing affirmitive action.

This is the same thng as taxes. Everyone is always trying to get someone else to do something to make the world better. If you think taxes should be higher -- give your money to the government -- and don't seek tax shelters. Same with affirmitive action.

I have sympathy for those people that don't succeed because of something external, I just don't think the economy should.

These jobs, are, at least should be, a race to the top. It should be highly competitive, and only the best should survive. The best at doing the job, because at the end of the day, that should be all that matters. I know tons of minorities that are much smarter than me. Most of the top performers in law school now are women. I think they all should get a job that maybe I couldn't if they were ranked higher or whatever.

But, seriously, I have never heard a partner read a memo or a brief and said, "wow, this guy must be a minority, because this is barely competent". You take people that are going to produce good work, that's all you should be focused with. It's not that cut and dry between 2nd in the class and 3rd, they're probably even, so give deference to whatever you want. Let's be real people, we're not talking about the editor of the harvard law review getting passed over for some minority Loyola 2L. We're all qualified. And we all bring something different. There are just as many non-minorities as minorities that have overcome adversity to get where they are. We're a very very small subset of the population, we don't need to discriminate, or reverse discriminate here.

Way to clown Loyola 2L.

Thanks.

Those in power will always oppose anything which threatens to upset that grip (French Revolution, Russian Revolution, Protestant Reformation, etc). The opinions of those born into the privileged sex and race have minimal understanding and even less incentive to recognize the need for diversity recruitment programs. Of course if you are white and male its easy to oppose these initiatives. The truly special members of that group are those who recognize the value even though it may mean less positions for white males.

The fact that people are not talking about is that most partners at the top law firms are not top of their class from top law schools. Law firms are comprised of lawyers of varying strengths and weakness of which law school grades is but one factor. Rainmaking ability, trial experience and other factors are also important to what makes a top lawyer in a top firm.

These panels seem to overlook the elephant in the room -- there are lots of mediocre attorneys at law firms -- white males included. Let's talk about that!

And the truly special blacks are those who recognize the unfairness of affirmative action even though it means fewer positions for themselves.

2:59 -- Seriously, you highlight my observation as being the most racist comment here? You must be editor of the Harvard Law Review. Did you not read the comments about black inferiority?

Entitlement is the real issue here, folks. Wake Up! For any lawyer -- black white red yellow purple or green--not holding up their end of the bargain will land you flat on your butt outside of BIGLAW. The market always works it out, it's no different for firms, even with affirmative action plans in place. So what's with the crying and griping.

While I don't have the stats, I don't think any BIGLAW firm can boast that African-American Attorneys make up any more than 5% of the attorneys hired. In fact, many only have a few. So why are you all crying about implications that are merely theoretical.

You do realize that promoting "set-asides" or "quotas" is basically segregation right? I mean, that would cause people to only compete with their own race. There would be 6 different recruiting programs. Six different partnership tracks. Six different law school admission standards. Why don't we just go ahead and split the schools to only have one of those groups so everyone can know where they stand in their respective "class"? What about the states?

The problem with equality is that it has to be blind equality. What ruins the system is that people are administering it. If you set standards based on ethinicity or race or gender you're establishing the exact opposite. You're promoting inequality. You're telling people they're different. When you're supposed to be getting people to realize that the color of your skin doesn't make you different than anyone else.

3:43, you're truly special if you can't see the "unfairness" that most minorities face each and everyday.

Chris Rock was right when he said, "No white people in the world would want to trade places with me. And I'm rich!"

3:48,

The issue is that people wish to deny the historic effects of excluding certain groups for generations, the amount of advantage that has already accrued and obstacles in place. If we could equalize history perhaps all of the problems would be solved. How to remove the proxies for sexism and racism that exist currently (for those aware enough to recognize them) ?

Chris Rock - there's a good source. What would happen if a white guy had an entire routine based upon how funny, ignorant, and violent blacks are? I have a feeling he wouldn't be embraced. it's totally cool for a black to do that though. Either be equal or shut up. Don't use race as a sword and a sheild.

Throw away your privilege

"Many clients seek to hire a lawfirm with a committment to diversity."

This is what kills me, though - the proposition that large corporations are somehow the gatekeepers of racial equality in this country. Oh, so you want an attorney of color helping you prevent unionization at your company to the tune of $170K/annum? So, it's really important that you have a Benetton ad of a team advising you on how to skirt the securities laws so that you can screw small-time investors? Wow. How very progressive of you. Diversity for these companies, and law firms, ends up being window dressing, plain and simple. At my law firm, the number of people of color (largely women of color) in support staff positions outnumbers those in attorney positions by, literally, about twenty to one. I imagine it's the same with our clients.

I actually believe in affirmative action and believe that it's intended to redress past and present wrongs - serious wrongs. Many BIGLAW clients perpetuate these wrongs every single day in conducting their businesses and, yet, want to come off smelling like roses when it comes to who represents them. The hypocrisy is incredible.

How many of you work at top tier firms? If so, look at the credentials of your black colleagues. I would be certain that you will see top 10 law schools and not lower tier schools in thier bios. Now look at your white colleagues. Do you see more tier 2 schools and 3 tier schools? This is exactly what Sanders is wrong about. Who exactly is (unfairly) getting ahead of whom?

For the record, white women have received the most benefits from affrimative action. Can't tell by the whining on this website.

3:34

Okay, last comment, then I really have to concentrate on my job (strangely, clients do not care about my personal hobby-horses).
I think a few personal differences of opinion are at the heart of this disagreement over affirmative action.

1) It is likely that there are minorities who because of their socioeconomic status ranked lower than I did in law school but that are none the less just as (or more) intelligent and capable as I am. After all as we all know and as 3:41 alluded to, law school teaches us very little about being successful lawyers.

2) We, as a society, have to take responsibility for the consequences of slavery and racism, not because we personally had anything to do with those problems, but because we have benefited from them. Non-minorities are able to benefit from a greater number of opportunities when similarly endowed minorities are not allowed to fairly compete for those opportunities.

3) Your view of a meritocracy is similar to arguments regarding economic efficiency and suffers the same flaw. Meritocracies are only "optimal" if everything is equal at the beginning. If we start with a non-equal playing field (and through a few roadblocks in the way just for shits and giggles), there is no guarantee that the very best and brightest will actually be able to defeat the merely capable and privileged.

My point was simply that everyone posting has made it. You've obviously "overcome" and i could almost guarantee that personally you've probably not overcome more than I have, maybe the same, but not more.

But now that you're here, I expect to compete on an equal level. I understand that different paths may be needed (although I contend the real inequity is socio-economic, but that's another conversation). White guys don't get a two step headstart in the olympics. They're world class athletes. At this level. We compete fairly. We compete to win.

More black lawyers at top firms went to top law schools than white lawyers at top firms b/c of affirmative action in law school placement. If these same lawyers were white, many would have went to lower tier law schools (like many of their white counterparts). To suggest otherwise is to ignore data on law school admissions, and data on minority LSAT scores, which are much lower than caucasian scores.

3:56: what the hell does the Chris Rock quote have to do with what you're moaning about?

also, don't let your real feelings about african americans show. (i.e., "What would happen if a white guy had an entire routine based upon how funny, ignorant, and violent blacks are?").

Check the undergraduate institutions of your black associate collegaues. And I am talking about AMLAW 100 firms. Again, you will see more top 10 undergraduate institutions or summa cum laude or other honors from non top 10 institutions. But then I guess you'd suggest the culprit is affirmative action in college admissions. Although I don't see how summa cum laude or other honors is a result of affirmative action, do you really think that the admissions officers at a top private institution, like Harvard, would admit a black student with stellar academics over a white student who is the child of a harvard alum with above average academics? And when that white child is admitted, where will her children go to college? And so the privilege goes.

4:37 - have you ever watched Chris Rock in concert? Those aren't my words or sentiments. His entire routine speaks about how funny, ignorant, and violent whites are.

So it's ok for blacks to speak of whites in very vulgar and disgusting terms - but not ok for whites to speak about race at all. It's ok to have affirmative action, but God forbid someone question whether the blacks actually need it or if it will actually do any good at all.

You get a boost when it comes to getting jobs, getting into school, etc., but once in everyone must forget that and see you as equal. OK.

My dad was a neglectful, absentee father. My mother was an alcoholic who was eventually institutionalized. All of my siblings had drinking or drug problems.
But I went to college, graduated from law school, and now have a good job.
Minorities don't have a monopoly on suffering. Grow up, get over yourselves, work hard, and stop whining.

5:26, the only person i hear "whining" is you.

Talk about whining. Get over yourself, 5:26.

Wow the outright silliness of some of these comments is astounding. Where have you once seen a BigLaw firm hand a minority, in the bottom half of their class, a job? Haven't seen it. Actually, when have you seen BigLaw hand anyone in the bottom half of their law school class a job, aside from laterals with a couple of years of experience? It doesn't happen.

And really, there may be minority students in top tier law schools, but they have hardly "taken" any spots from more qualified white students. There are far more less qualified white students that are in these schools than there are minorities.

interesting thing about affirmative action now-a-days, is that many Ivy-type schools are now admitting African immigrants instead of typical black americans. African immigrants have the highest educational levels of any immigrant group, and would likely be admitted to these fine schools regardless of AA. As the # of African immigrants gets larger and larger this whole topic might be a moot point.

Quite the contrary. I have nothing to whine about. I am very fulfilled, and am grateful for what I have.
My point, which you missed, is that there are plenty of people who have overcome difficult obstacles to get where they are, without whining about how it's all society's fault. It's not society's fault that I was dealt a bad deck of cards, and I did not get where I am today because of "white privilege." I worked hard, and doors opened up. That's the way the real world works.

Why has no one addressed 2:10's comment?

I agree that something must be done about the harsh inequality subjected to underrepresented minorities, but what about Asian Americans? I would further venture to suggest that hiring URMs at the law firm level, similar to that of the higher education level, disadvantages not white applicants but Asian applicants. Why is that fair?

If a system isn't working, or is hurting another group, then shouldn't we be thinking of a new system? (e.g. if mentoring is a presumably an important factor in success, why not expand a mentoring program?? I'm just a law student so forgive me if I'm being naive...)

5:36, how do you know, exactly, that you didn't get where you are today because white privilege? If you believe that, I feel sorry for you.

It's the sense of entitlement in a lot (but not all) of my white colleagues that gets to me. I graduated from a top 5 law school and I can't count the number of white men who seriously believed I took "their" spot because I was a minority woman. Never mind I scored in the 99th percentile on the LSAT and graduated with honors from a top undergraduate school. Didn't matter. Poor, poor white men. They "had" to go to Georgetown or BC instead. Give me a break.

5:54 makes a great case for why even minorities are hurt by AA.

5:54 here. I am not making a case for ending AA based on the fact that some white people can't get over their sense of entitlement. I'm merely pointing out that they need to. I think a long-term attitude shift is required, but ending AA and letting whiners get "their" spots "back" is not the way to do it.

5:44, why do you assume that 5:36 did get where he was because of white privilege? Your attitude ("I feel sorry for you") reeks of condescension. Do you honestly think that if a white person is successful (and overcame obstacles) it must be because of white privilege?
If so, you have a very warped view of what makes people successful. Unfortunately that is typical of minorities who assume that the whole world is against them.

"How many of you work at top tier firms? If so, look at the credentials of your black colleagues. I would be certain that you will see top 10 law schools and not lower tier schools in thier bios. Now look at your white colleagues. Do you see more tier 2 schools and 3 tier schools? This is exactly what Sanders is wrong about. Who exactly is (unfairly) getting ahead of whom?"

This whole affirmative action debate is largely a top-tier school issue. I work at a top-tier firm and am one of the "entitled" whites you talk about. I went to a local NYC law school and, yes, got a job in BIGLAW. Why? Because I was fifth in my class after my first year. It is widely-known that students at top-tier law schools - white or otherwise - aren't subjected to nearly as much grade scrutiny as their counterparts at lower-tiered schools. There are very, very few students from lower-tiered schools - white or otherwise - who went straight to BIGLAW who did not pay serious academic dues in law school, at least during their first year. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges with respect to "credentials." I'm sure I'll get flamed with commentary about how easy it is to be at the top of your class at a second- or third-tier law school. I can assure you that's not even close to the case.

I was on the hiring committee at my firm and they routinely extended offers for summer associateships to students from top schools who had some mediocre-ass grades. I actually have no problem with that because I understand the logic that admission alone qualifies these students to be summer associates. That said, it's outrageous to presume that white candidates, or any candidate, for that matter, from lower-tiered schools have some kind of "in" at large law firms - quite the contrary. Maybe 10% of my graduating class entered BIGLAW upon graduation. The students, mostly white, were far from having a sense of entitlement - they would've felt lucky to get a D.A. gig in Queens.

Who is working to eliminate the bias against tier 5 grads?

Here's my question -- when is enough affirmative action enough?

Now I understand the argument (even though I don't agree with it) that affirmative action in college admissions is necessary to make up for unequal access to high school and pre-secondary education. But after this, there are STILL unequal outcomes after college, so law school engage in yet another round of affirmative action for a less-compelling reason (to make up for the college disparity caused by the unequal access to secondary educational resources?). And even AFTER law school, firms engage in yet a third round, based on mealymouthed platitudes about...

I'm sorry, but at some point, you should be judged based on what you've done, and not what you could have done had you been read to more and played mozart when you were a child.

"Here's my question -- when is enough affirmative action enough?"

When there no longer is such a thing as tier 2. When all graduates are treated equally regardless of where they went to school.

The point, 6:46, is how many of the black associates could get a summer associate gig if they went to your alma mater? My guess is few, if any.

OH REALLY?! Lat's tipster found the black attorney scary and threatening?

From NY Times weekend magazine this sunday:

Recent experiments have suggested that people who believe themselves to be free of bias may harbor plenty of it all the same.

The experiment . . . flashes pictures of black and white faces at you and asks you to associate various adjectives with the faces. Repeated tests have shown that white subjects take longer to respond when they’re asked to associate black faces with positive adjectives and white faces with negative adjectives than vice versa, and this is said to be an implicit measure of unconscious racism.

Phelps and her colleagues added neurological evidence to this insight by scanning the brains and testing the startle reflexes of white undergraduates at Yale before they took the I.A.T. She found that the subjects who showed the most unconscious bias on the I.A.T. also had the highest activation in their amygdalas — a center of threat perception — when unfamiliar black faces were flashed at them in the scanner. By contrast, when subjects were shown pictures of familiar black and white figures — like Denzel Washington, Martin Luther King Jr. and Conan O’Brien — there was no jump in amygdala activity.

Dude, your embitterment towards affirmative action would likely be lessened if you took a loooong hard long at yourself and the benefits you had growing up, benefits that many minority students don't. The "meritocracy" is a bunch of bullshit.

Let me guess --you're not black or hispanic, right? Mommy and/or daddy went to college? Did they have professional degrees too? Doctors, scientists, lawyers? Paid for your lessons and SAT prep classes and LSAT prep classes and forced you to do your homework every night, right? Let me guess further -- you were surrounded by a bunch of white and/or asian peers in a really good school who peer pressured you into applying to college and law school? What kind of public school district did you live in as a kid? Or did you get to go to private school?

Now, obviously, I don't know the answers to the above questions in your particular case, so don't bore me with the details of "where I'm wrong" and tales of how you worked your way through law school in a saw mill and how your mom ran a meth lab. My point is that there was nothing more annoying to me in law school than Charney-esque deluded douchebags, many of whom were the CHILDREN of lawyers and doctors, who had nevertheless somehow convinced themselves that everything they achieved was the result of "their own merit." Even though mommy and daddy up in Westchester had been bankrolling and pushing them towards academic success since birth. When the deluded and privileged middle-class children of professional-degree holders bitch and moan about affirmative action, someone needs to slap them in the face and cancel their credit cards.

Too bad we can't take every college student in this country and tattoo their parents' educational level and net worth on their foreheads. We'd learn something about "meritocracy" then.

I just wanted to point out that every black kid didn't grow up with alcoholic parents in the ghetto, and every white kid didn't grow up in a mansion with an american express black card.

For a minority to tell a white person they've never dealt with anything is equally as ignorant as a white person telling minorities they should get over their plight.

you know what i would like to see? Ok, I'll tell you. I wonder what the average debt is for an african american and a caucasian kid after law school given that they came from the same household income.

I think that would be a good indication of whether the student is actually doing it themselves, or getting a handout from someone other than their parents.

The children of rich or otherwise successful people can still earn success for themselves. The might grow up with a few advantages but in the end, if they can put out a good product then they're the real deal.

Ken Griffey Jr. is good at baseball because he's good at baseball, not because his father hooked him up. Merit and a successful family are not mutually exclusive.

And to the extent that values like an appreciation for education are cultural, it makes sense that some families are going to do better on average in school and in professions. (exhibit A: American Jews)

If your parents can read in three languages you might be ahead o