Conservatives are opposed to affirmative action programs that give preferences to certain racial groups, based on nothing other than race. No conservatives oppose a thoughtful approach to making institutions diverse from an ideological point of view. Thus, conservatives would be for this kind of "viewpoint" affirmative action, as opposed to the current system, which presupposes that blacks add to "diversity" just because they're black.

In that way, it is interesting that Lat referred to "an African-American or female law professor from a socioeconomically privileged background." Everyone who has been to a top school knows that most of the affirmative action admits are not economically disadvantaged. And in any case, economic disadvantage can be evaluated entirely apart from race.

Affirmative action based on experience and background is A OK. Affirmative action based on race is racism.

Look at the Monica Goodling mess.

I know people from law school with not so hot grades who got certain gov't positions/clerkships due to being federalists.

The problem is that diversity, such as we know the term to be, stands for nothing except a vague desire on behalf of the guilt-ridden to appear virtuous. We all know that it's not about "real" diversity, and that some people are more diverse than others. The principles behind AA are shoddy, and the implementation is even shoddier. It's hard, therefore, to say that the above proposal is consistent with those principles, since no one is sure what exactly those principles are.

While only a small percentage of ethnic minorities admitted through affirmative action will be intellectually inferior to their peers, nearly all Federalist Society members suffer from questionable reasoning skills (such as basing their arguments on unfounded premises such as "the word of God" and what James Monroe was thinking the morning he headed off to the Constitutional Convention -- as if either mattered).

Ergo, the analogy does not hold, and Federalist Society members must not be given preferences in admission.

Does it help to be female when applying for a position as a law professor?

12:13: Yes

12:13, That's a nice straw man you got there, would be a shame if something happened to it.

First of all, read Sander on the actual differences in performance between AA and non-AA law students. They are *staggering.*

Second, what makes you think that Federalists are bible-toting idiots? Going back, quite literally, millenia, most of the wisest philosophers and legal thinkers were men of religion, able to balance their ideas without conflict. Consider Bentham, Bacon, (either Bacon), etc.

Lat, superficially, this seems like a great idea. But, I have two concerns:

1. Practically, isn't it harder to define "conservative" than it is to define black or female? How would we qualify a "conservative" for purposes of filling a diversity quota? Isn't it easy to fake it, or distort the definition in hopes of getting a job?

2. Idealistically, isn't a law school education supposed to be about learning the law and legal skills, not about learning your professor's politics? Shouldn't politics not matter when learning torts or contracts or (ideally) even con law?

The false assumption underlying this argument is that right-wing social conservatives are actually underrepresented among law professors, relative to the population.

Considering that the current judiciary is significantly to the right of the average American, social conservatives are actually overrepresented in law.

Also, I think that a lingering rational (though rejected by the SC) for affimative action is restitution for past harms.

12:13(a): As opposed to the intellectual honesty of: finding a right to abortion (not in the Constitution) but no right to own firearms (in the Constitution). Lets face it, legal “scholars” on both sides of most issues are mostly political hacks these days.

12:24, How is the restitution rationale advanced by admitting students who were born in West Africa under the auspices of the AA program, which as you offer, exists to rectify the harm visited on African Americans?

The problem is a complete misunderstanding of AA, particularly by conservatives. It's not just about past harms or even establishing diversity in academia, employment, etc. It's about persistent structural racism/gender discrimination endemic in our system. It's become internalized by people on all sides of the equation. So AA at least does some of the work at combating this, albeit not enough.

Affirmative action is designed to foster racial and not ideological diveristy.

Therefore, in the marketplace of ideas, there is no need or rational for it.

Right-wingers have talk radio + Fox TV and we have the university system.

12:11(1) - is that limited to conservatives, though? I would be willing to bet that plenty of ACS members get clerkships through their ACS connections despite the lack of stellar academic credentials, and when there has been a democrat in control of the executive in the past and when there is a democrat in control of the executive branch in the future, I am sure they will get the same advantage that the federalist kids have received these last 7 years.

It's about persistent structural racism/gender discrimination endemic in our system.

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

Well, it would be a hell of a lot easier for us to "understand" AA if its liberal supports would stop changing the justifications for it.

At any rate, there are lots of ways to identify those who have been disadvataged, and give them a leg up in admissions. AA, as currently practiced, doesn't even bother to try. That's why most AA admits -- at the better schools, at least-- are clearly from well to-do families.

Affirmative Action isn’t about political ideology. AA was - in theory at least - designed to correct the problems of racial/gender/sexual orientation discrimination. Individuals on both sides of the AA debate agree that racial/gender/sexual orientation discrimination must end. AA was not designed to address ideological discrimination. Furthermore, I would think that individuals on both sides of the AA debate would agree that ideological discrimination is a perfectly acceptable practice at law schools: e.g., Regent is following a perfectly acceptable practice in its hiring preferences for Christian-right faculty, whereas a traditionally liberal institution like Boalt/Berkley is following a perfectly acceptable practice by hiring faculty of a humanist-liberal bent.

I suppose one could certainly make the argument that a policy which promotes ideological/intellectual diversity is in the best interests of a university, and therefore the definition of AA should be expanded to address this objective. It strikes me as a bit silly though. A competent university administration shouldn’t need a binding policy to create an intellectually/ideologically diverse faculty – it should be a no-brainer.

12:38 - That is because AA is currently incomplete. I'm all for expanding it, to include an economic component as well. However, even for people of color from somewhat well-to-do backgrounds face certain structural discrimination that white kids, even lower-income white kids, don't. For example, targeting by cops, lack of job interviews based on perceived "black" names, and a lot of other stuff I could get into if I had the space here, or the time.

Sure, add an across-the-board AA program based purely on economics, but don't use it to replace the current race/gender-based model.

This is the most rediculous idea Ive heard all week. In the first place, what possible past injustice has been suffered at the hands of right-wing conservatives? Second, ditto to 12:33. Finally, if you were to implement some form of AA that addressed political beliefs (and really, the concept of this misses the mark so far that Im not even sure why it warrants a discussion), would that mean that conservative schools would have to make spots for liberals, or that all schools would have to make spots for socialists, or nazis, etc?

Why are there very few "hard-core social conservative" law professors? The same reason there are very few "hard-core social conservative" Ph.Ds or doctors. Receiving a western college-level education followed by a professional or doctoral education negates the chance you will be a closed-minded, ignorant piece of crap.

There already is massive Affirmative Action for conservatives in legal academia and it's called law and economics.

All it takes is a worn copy of Hayek under your arm and a slight misunderstanding of Econ 101 and wham-o, you get to call yourself a professor.

There is an underrepresentation of Nazis and KKK members in universities and law schools. We need to remedy this IMMEDIATELY.

does anyone else not care about this at all?

I think law schools should admit some smart people for the sake of diversity.

Affirmative action is a disgrace. 12 years ago I was waitlisted at Rutgers- the flamingly liberal state U. of NJ with a 164 LSAT when the meidal at the time was 159! Now I have my own firm consisting of 15 attorneys and I categorically exclude anyone from that school even if they are #1 in the class. Should have sued them! one of my largest regrests!

I think the comment, in and of itself, is a prime example of the covert racism present in our society.

To even suggest that being a conservative in a liberal institution of education is on par with being black in America is offensive.

What's more offensive, a noose on a black professor's door, or a Kucinich bumper sticker on a conservative professor's door?

What would be regarded as the best race/gender/orientation for AA purposes?

This is sophistry at its finest. I can't believe someone would make this argument with a straight face.

Here's the funny thing about political beliefs -- they're not immutable. They change, a LOT. I used to be a hard-core conservative wingnut. Now I'm a left-leaning feminist. Strangely, though, neither my genitalia nor my skin color (nor, for that matter, the genitalia of persons to whom I find myself attracted) have changed ever in my life.

Also, it's very easy to pretend you're a right-winger, with no one being the wiser. Actually, scratch that. It is tough for someone who's reached enlightenment to intentionally act like a neanderthal. But still, we could do it if it were a question of getting into a better law school. Conversely, I would love to see a white dude try to pretend he's an Indian woman.

12:48-
you are a disgrace

12:48, how on earth could someone with your delightful and humble demeanor EVER have been waitlisted?

It's fascinating that so many (presumably) left-liberal commenters are against this proposed policy - yet most likely support the traditional definition of AA. Make of that what you will. I, for one, despise race/gender/sexual orientation discrimination in any form. I also am in favor of ideologically diverse university environments. Therefore, as neither the traditional AA policy nor the proposed expansion aid in reaching these ends, I reject AA in all forms.

12:19, your knee-jerk deference to the words of others (as written in books), rather than analyzing an issue anew only proves my point.

"nearly all Federalist Society members suffer from questionable reasoning skills"

I love when people suggest that failure to agree with what they think equals questionable reasoning skills.

We have at least one hard core social conservative at UTexas: Lino Graglia.

He definitely serves to generate debate, and one time he even managed to get Jesse Jackson to come all the way down to Austin.

The market is going to run on 15 cent price tags to put on diplomas if this is implemented.

I agree with the above comment

"I can't believe someone would make this argument with a straight face."

What makes you think they're not laughing as they write it? I kind of assumed they were.

Restitution is a bad justification for AA. Not so much from a justice standpoint but a workability standpoint. Someone threw out the West African example. Working against structural racism is probably a better way to go.

12:48: Maybe at that time Rutgers already had a full slate of white suburban kids with a chip on their shoulder and wanted to spice up the class mix a little. Aren't they free to admit the class that they want to, that they feel will lead to the greatest educational experience for everyone? And I am sure that there are a lot of #1's from Rutgers applying to your firm.

Quoting 12:10: "Affirmative action based on experience and background is A OK. Affirmative action based on race is racism."

Does not one's race influence one's experience and background?

Is it really that big a leap to say that all people of group X have had a shared experience - the experience of being treated as a member of group X - which makes their background different and worthy of some consideration?

12:49 Is a lack of diverstiy in law school really on the same par as hanging nooses on people's doors? And I am a white surburban kid who went to a undergrad at an urban campus and law school was actually the most diverse place I ever attended. This is a good thing, btw.

1) Admitting a class with diverse views is an end in and of itself. Admitting people based on race is a means to an end. The two have nothing in common.

2) Not all bible thumpers are Federalists, nor are all Federalists bible thumpers. It's not exactly a big tent, but it certainly includes both social conservatives and libertarians.

The Bible thumpers are only Federalists because they are in general gullible and foolish and have been tricked by the Federalists into giving their support.

1:06
Good point. I was a poor white kid from nowhere and made it through grad and law school on my own. Poor black kids from the city can't do that. We need AA. Good thinking!

12:48: Maybe at that time Rutgers already had a full slate of white suburban kids with a chip on their shoulder and wanted to spice up the class mix a little. Aren't they free to admit the class that they want to, that they feel will lead to the greatest educational experience for everyone? And I am sure that there are a lot of #1's from Rutgers applying to your firm.

In fact We get resumes every year from people in the top 10 because we are great firm and go to trial all the time..

Rutgers can do what it wants except when it becomes illegal.

12:48: Maybe at that time Rutgers already had a full slate of white suburban kids with a chip on their shoulder and wanted to spice up the class mix a little. Aren't they free to admit the class that they want to, that they feel will lead to the greatest educational experience for everyone? And I am sure that there are a lot of #1's from Rutgers applying to your firm.

In fact We get resumes every year from people in the top 10 because we are great firm and go to trial all the time..

Rutgers can do what it wants except when it becomes illegal.

how about white males from middle class backgrounds? i had to work two jobs at the same time to get through college. as a result, my grades suffered and i could not get into a t14 school.

By way of background, I'm a URM (underrepresented minority). I went to a decent law school, got good grades and was on journal. I did one decent clerkship followed by a so-called "top" clerkship. I am off to one of the premier big dc firms, having turned down a Vault 6 law firm. I am having fun in the meantime spending my clerkship bonus.

Regarding 12:19's discussion of the "staggering" underperformance of URM's when compared to their white counterparts, I guess I'll by it. However, this leaves one heck of a looming question: what about white recipients of AA? Is their performance similarly tracked?

We know, for instance, that Monica Goodling and her kind routinely rise to meteoric heights despite questionable credentials. I personally know of similar stories (see Justice Thomas' incoming clerk who attended TTT's throughout; while it’s commendable that he did well, he probably couldn't have landed an interview at many lower courts; see DC and 2nd Circuit).

To properly frame the question, is there a way to fairly gauge how well the beneficiaries of nepotism and cronyism -- social winners; primarily white men -- perform versus URM's in our society?

They don;t consider demeanor on a law school app.

Does anyone think that this already happens to some degree or no?

I am a white male from a middle class background so I would love it if there was AA for us, but it is not the same thing.

On a purely mixed experience basis, there are many, many more white males with middle class backgrounds applying to college than there are African-Americans, or by definition any other minority.

It is the same thing as when you applied to college. If the college had already admitted 30 people from your high school or state, or area of the country, it would be prefer to admit someone from a different high school or region to mix it up a little, regardless of race.

200 years ago the law schools were made up of just rich dudes, now there are a lot of us middle classers in there.

Doesn't the entire argument fall apart on the basis that a lot of conservatives are simply full of it. Why not admit someone on the basis of their beleive that the world is flat or that the moon landing was fake or that dinosaurs did not exist. Those are also underrepresented thoughts at law school.

What's a "meidal"?

I am a social conservative on the AALS meat market this year. I have a PhD in addition to my law degree, lots of pubs, great letters of recommendations from elite law profs..... and hardly any interviews.

Anyone who says there isn't a liberal bias in the Academy is either ignorant or a liar.

A friend of mine is currently at Columbia Law. He has blue eyes and blonde hair and is as white as can be. But on his application he stated that he was african american. Despite his 164 lsat, he was admitted. Nobody ever bothered to check whether he was indeed african amercian (how would they? how would columbia confirm his race, by saying that he doesn't "look black"?? Have a race confirmation day during orientation w/ dna tests, etc? Who has the burden of proving or disproving race?).

Great scam. Am surprised more people don't do it.

There is not a liberal basis in Academics, there is a bias toward people who tell the truth and whose arguments make sense.

Social conseratives are holding this country back. We have no use for them. Go back to West Virginia.

1:30: great scam ... until he applies for the bar

1:30, your story smells a bit of B.S.

1:25 and 1:32 are very compelling examples in support of Prof. Mankiw's argument.

1:25, narrow-minded, self-righteous, smug people like you are nauseating. I would love to see the look on your face when your narrow-mindedness turns around and bites you in the ass - which at some point it certainly will - via a professor, a partner, a client, opposing counsel, a judge, etc. I'd also love to see the look on your face when I ________ [insert violent act directed at 1:25]....

Thanks for that brilliant argument 1:35. You're right we should have more people like you teaching.

satanists to 190!

It is shocking the number of people that think the federal judiciary is far to the right of "the average American." I grant you the bench is somewhat right of the New York Times and NPR, but equating those bastions of the left with "the average American" is laughable. There are places in this country beyond Manhattan, 12:24.

Some people even think the federal judiciary is not conservative enough. Indeed, their numbers are many. Horrors!

1:52 - Full disclosure, I'm a big lefty. That said, I'll admit the federal judiciary is not that far to the right of the American public on a lot of issues. But it really depends on the issue.

I think we have conflated social and fiscal conservativism, which doesn't always make sense. I think a lot of Americans outside the big metro areas (the bastions of my people, the aforementioned "lefties") a lot of people are social conservative, but not necessarily economically conservative. I have friends who are religious, from small towns, etc. (and again, I don't claim them to be a representative sample) who have talked about how the people who they grew up around were socially very conservative, but still supported a lot of government programs and were very distrustful of big business.

I think that's a big portion of the American public. And I think on financial issues, the judiciary is definitely to the right of them.

I'm black and while I didn't grow up rich, I came from a solid middle class family. I went to undergrad at Columbia's Engineering School and during my first year befriended a white girl from a Florida Trailer Park. Needless to say, she was the first person from a trailer park I'd ever met. She was extremely nice and thoughtful and one of the smartest and hardest working people I met at Columbia (not the stereotypical racist, hillbilly, Jerry Springer type I thought people from Southern trailer parks were). I suppose I taught her that not every black person aspires to be in the NBA, a rapper or to have 15 karats of bling.

But here's the paradox. Meeting a white person who grew up in much worse circumstances than me taught me that the whole idea of AA is pretty much garbage. My friend went to much worse public schools than me and was the first person in her family to go to college (unlike me). So back then I realized much of the "wrongs" AA is designed to address didn't quite work as planned.

With that said, I think the lesson also taught me a bit about the actual value of diversity. I think I had certain prejudices and stereotypes of "poor white trash" and most of those were based on pure ignorance (not knowing anyone who actually came from that kind of background and relying on the media to paint a picture - sound familiar white people?). So the problem is how do schools get "diversity" without the "race based preferences" I'm staunchly opposed to. I always thought "Economic Based Preferences" might be a decent kind of middle ground. In other words, take race off school applications like UCs but then weight applications based upon income under the theory that the more money one's family makes, the greater the chance they can a) afford tutors and SAT course, b) go to decent public or private schools. I think that would level the proverbial playing field in a much more fair and just manner

1:52

The entire point of having a un-elected, lifetime appointed judiciary is to insulate us from the largely uninformed back and forth sways of majority opinion. We do not want our laws shift so they reflect the current prevailing attitude, whether it is 60's, 70's, 80's or today.

There is not mob rule in this country.

But I also do not accept your contention that the average of American is more conserative. The last two presidential elections were extremely close. The problem is that the media is desperate to write articles which show more than one point of view, so they go out of their way to find some cracker Bible thumper.

Believe it or not, most people do not listen to Rush or watch Bill O'Reilly.

12:13 take it from someone who took Erwin Chemerinksy for Con Law. Professors insert their politics into class...OFTEN. I can't tell how many left-wing Chem lectures I had to sit through and when I heard Irvine was firing him before I started, I can't say I was shocked or surprised. Of course, like most gutless institutions, they reneged.

"Believe it or not, most people do not listen to Rush or watch Bill O'Reilly."

Most people no. Does that mean the number of people that do listen/watch is insignificant?

O'Reilly's not even that conservative. He's just abrasive.

Why are there very few "hard-core social conservative" law professors? The same reason there are very few "hard-core social conservative" Ph.Ds or doctors. Receiving a western college-level education followed by a professional or doctoral education negates the chance you will be a closed-minded, ignorant piece of crap.

Posted by: anon | October 12, 2007 12:44 PM

This is old news. John McGinnis (Northwestern Law professor) published an article on this a couple years ago in The Georgetown Law Journal.

And there was a debate about it at GULC. John McGinnis squared off against Mike Seidman. Seidman made a more sophisticated version of the point that some people are raising here. In order to believe Mankiw's argument, you first need a theory of why conservative views ought to be taught in law schools. "Diversity" is not sufficient -- otherwise we'd be hiring Holocaust deniers. So to believe Mankiw's argument, you would have to believe that conservative views are "correct" or "meritorious" or at least "thought-provoking in worthwhile ways."

So when you get down to it, the debate is actually centered around the substantive merits of conservative versus liberal viewpoints. Diversity is a red herring. Focus instead on the real dispute.

[For what it's worth, Seidman's more specific view was that conservatives are wrong and do not deserve equal representation in law schools, but he still felt that law schools should hire some conservatives because conservatives can be "wrong in interesting ways."]

What do Rush or Bill O'Reilly have to do with it?

Most of America is pretty moderate, and the judiciary is right about there too. Rights tend to be a one-way ratchet forward, though -- it's hard to take them away once they've been granted. The crazies you've cited are simply irrelevant for purposes of the law. There are, however, plenty of respected conservative legal thinkers who deserve a place at the table.

"Receiving a western college-level education followed by a professional or doctoral education negates the chance you will be a closed-minded, ignorant piece of crap."

Almost certainly not true. How about this instead:

"Receiving a western college-level education followed by a professional or doctoral education means that you will probably have adopted the social values that are predominant in western colleges, professional/doctorate programs."

Here's the difference. You're born black or female. You don't wake up one morning and say, I'll be black from now on. And nobody has a sex change just to (supposedly) improve his/her chances at getting into a good school.

But you're not born a federalist. You choose to become one (unless you're brain washed??). So you deal with the consequences, even if that means being underrepresented at America's elite schools!

I love that conservatives are brainwashed and liberals are educated.

Ben, that is so persuasive. Similarly, you are not necessarily born Muslim, or Jewish, or Christian. So a college wants to deny you admission because you are a Muslim - let 'em - it's your own fault for picking an unpopular religion. Right? (You are an idiot, sir).

Supporting 12:10 et. al.

To regard the appropriate application of AA policies as contingent only upon skin color is a shameful distortion which results in the very criterion these policies sought to make socially irrelevant as becoming the only consideration. AA for different life experiences and backgrounds should be the basis. If this happens to be highly correlated with race, the policy is rightly fulfilled without the problems of ignoring deserving people who happen to be minorities. This further precludes the likelihood of those, who otherwise would not be advanced, but for their race, of gaining an unfair advantage merely because of their skin color. The problem is that it is more difficult to ascertain who is economically and socially disadvantaged when race is not used as a heuristic.

The policy must change because applying it in this way is inherently racist in that it assumes the aims will be fulfilled by installing minorities simply because they are more likely to be economically and socially disadvantaged.

It would take a library to explain the social values that are predominant in western colleges, professional/docorate programs, but basically they would involve the social and religious values which have propelled Western society forward, with some pushback, since the renaisance.

As opposed to the values of religious intolerance, yahooism and snake oil salesmanship which exists elsewhere.

"basically they would involve the social and religious values which have propelled Western society forward, with some pushback"

I'm sure some conservatives would argue that their values are the ones that have propelled society forward.

Others would dispute whether or not society actually has moved "forward."

I don't necessarily agree with either group, but I'm just noting that most people think their values are the ones that are "good".

This whole thread really demonstrates on the big problems with Western society and its traditional concepts of freedom of thought and respect for all: If we really believe in freedom, then do we let people stand up and rail against the very freedom which allows them to stand there and rail? The answer is they can say whatever they want, but we do not necessarily have to listen to them, or hire them to teach at law schools.

"If we really believe in freedom"

We don't.

Oh my God this is great! This is so STIMULATING. I'm totally going to office hours to really explore this issue. I can't wait to join the Race & Gender journal.

But there's no historical injustice against right-wingers that has held them back. Other than their own idiocy.

"One could argue that a conservative law professor -- especially a hard-core social conservative, not a law-and-economics or libertarian type -- contributes as much to law school diversity (and discourse) as an African-American or female law professor from a socioeconomically privileged background, who went to an elite college and an elite law school, and has the standard liberal views of most legal academics."

That would be right if it were right. But it's wrong so it's wrong. In fact, it's not just wrong, it's idiotic.

This is a perfect example of discourse in America. The right offers and idea, a suggestion, and seeks discussion. The left calls the right "stupid,""crap," "brainwashed," "close-minded," and "ignorant."

Fantastic. This sums up in a nutshell my entire law school experience. Any conservative idea (or ideal) was met with an onslaught of mean-spirited name calling. I, like most of my conservative peers, wrote every exam as if I were a hard-core socialist--the only way to fight the anti-conservative discrimination we faced from professors. Thank goodness for anonymous grading!

What conservative ideas or ideals are you talking about? The elimination of voting rights, the gutting of the bill of rights, the insertion of Christianity and English as the official religion and language of this country?

And keep in mind that the original post referred to hard core social conseratives.

The 1910's and 1950's were ideal for a lot of white, middle class people. They pretty much sucked for any minorities or rural or urban poor.

See.

"Structural racism" is religion. It cannot be disproven by its critics, and its proponents simply pick and choose anecdotes supposedly proving its existence. Hardly a basis for a nation-wide college admission standard.

"What conservative ideas or ideals are you talking about?"

One conservative ideal might be to keep the range of constitutional rights limited. Why? To give local majorities the power to run their localities as they see fit. Has this worked out well in the past? Not exactly.

I like the idea of Economic Based Affirmative Action, but it only really works if we get rid of other preferences in the admissions process, particularly at many state schools.

The legacy admits are the WORST! "It's okay that you probably needed about three more weeks in the womb to function normally, your father has a gym on campus named after him, and thus we will admit you and all of your retarded cousins." If any number of historical and societal forces are aggregated, it is hard to argue with a straight face that these types of admits aren't tantamount to affirmative action for rich, and sometimes dumb, white kids.

Let's not even get started on some of the athletes that get admitted just because they can throw a ball, yet can't write a complete sentence to save their life.

Unless we ACTUALLY level the playing field and get rid of any sort of preferences in admissions, some sort of affirmative action will probably always be around.

Conservatives aren't dumb enough to waste their time in academia. Moreover, since conservatives have avoided wasting their time in academia, decision makers in academia tend to be liberals (after all, if they weren't, they would have already gone on to do something that matters). Liberals, like all people, tend to think that their ideas are correct and that anyone that disagrees is just too stupid to know better, so they only hire other liberals.

The system is pretty much perfect the way it is. If you are a reasonably smart white guy you are going to get in some where. Let's face it, all that talk about getting shut out due to AA is just sour grapes.

And there should be some diversity on campus. I don't know whether the minorities at my school were there due to AA or not, but they all seemed reasonably capable and I am a better person for having them around.

I am not a better person for having the moron who saw everything through the a Marxist lens and I am not better off for having the moron who thought "criminals should be in jail" was the answer to any 4th Amendment issue.

2:52: Oh, please. If you're going to selectively identify only the reasonable proponents of conservative ideas as "the right" and random anonymous spiteful blog commenters as "the left," then of course your self-righteous conception of political discourse will be confirmed. Anyone could just as easily choose reasonable proponents of liberal ideas and oppose them to rabid name-calling jackasses from the comments pages of, say, Free Republic, and by your logic completely refute you.

See if you can honestly disagree with these two elemental propositions:

1) Your personal experience in law school, especially as colored by your political preferences, does not provide useful evidence of culture-wide political tendencies in political discourse,

and

2) There is nothing inherent in liberal points of view or conservative points of view that makes the adherents of either "the" reasonable proponents and the adherents of the other nothing but reactive name-calling attackers; any mainstream point of view can be put forward respectfully and thoughtfully, or can be reduced to nothing but mean-spirited personal attacks, depending on the speaker.

Unfortunately, I would not put your "all liberals are the same" comment in the "reasonable" category.

"Most of America is pretty moderate, and the judiciary is right about there too. Rights tend to be a one-way ratchet forward, though -- it's hard to take them away once they've been granted."

Unless, of course, they guarantee bodily autonomy to women.

Definitely not worth considering. I don't mind conservatives, but I really don't like the ones that try to be cute by putting forth proposals for things like white scholarships and white aff action. It's just not cute! They should spend their time coming up with proposals that will achieve racial equality in a more effective way than affirmative action currently does. I would really be interested in hearing some solutions that can achieve this goal, because the colorblind/merit thing really isn't working.

And there was a debate about it at GULC. John McGinnis squared off against Mike Seidman. Seidman made a more sophisticated version of the point that some people are raising here. In order to believe Mankiw's argument, you first need a theory of why conservative views ought to be taught in law schools. "Diversity" is not sufficient -- otherwise we'd be hiring Holocaust deniers. So to believe Mankiw's argument, you would have to believe that conservative views are "correct" or "meritorious" or at least "thought-provoking in worthwhile ways."

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

What is your theory as to why liberal views ought to be taught? That they are somehow objectively "correct" and conservatives are objectively "wrong"? If so, it's really hard to imagine a better argument for ideological diversity.

They should spend their time coming up with proposals that will achieve racial equality in a more effective way than affirmative action currently does.

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

They do, but liberals don't want to hear them. For liberals, black inequality is all about white racism. Mention black behavior -- like their shocking illegitimacy rate -- and you're branded a racist. The "enlightened" view is to assume racism is (a) permanent, and (b) can't be overcome by its victims, and then advocate various handouts to placate everyone.

The results have been great: succesive generations of welfare recipients, ever more out of wedlock births, and black test scores that still lag every other group's, depiste two generations of AA. The liberal solution? More of the same thing.

If the viewpoint of a conservative isn't an appropriate candidate for viewpoint diversity, then what is it that makes the view point-- necessarily imputed -- of a person with brown skin so much superior?

I mean, we've all heard why a conservative viewpoint "can't be right." But is that the standard for diversity? Is it even possible, in a diverse society, to have many different views that are ALL "right."

2:18. You're conflating discrimination versus an affirmative inclusion criteria. You get no extra points for your beliefs, be it political or spiritual. Beliefs can't be underrepresented because they're changeable.

Wow, the level of discourse here is largely very shitty.

If the viewpoint of a conservative isn't an appropriate candidate for viewpoint diversity, then what is it that makes the view point-- necessarily imputed -- of a person with brown skin so much superior?

I mean, we've all heard why a conservative viewpoint "can't be right." But is that the standard for diversity? Is it even possible, in a diverse society, to have many different views that are ALL "right."

3:39 you must have went to a different law school than I did. Did you discuss that during Conlaw or Property? Or did you just find a way to insert that into a random discussion?

A different perspective, which I believe was recognized by Justice O'Connor in her opinion in the Michigan affirmative action case, looks to the function of law schools in producing lawyers who will work to represent and advance the interests of all segments of our society. This is not to say that one must be from a particular racial/ethnic/sexual group in order to be interested in advancing the interests of that group in having its "fair share" of societal goods, but that lawyers who are members of a group may be more likely to dedicate some of their efforts to advancing the interests of that group.

Of course there were non-black lawyers involved in the civil rights movement during the first half of this century, but it was the emergence of dedicated civil rights advocates from Howard University Law School that provided some of the decisive leadership leading to Brown v. Board of Education and the first non-white attorneys to serve as federal judges... and now several generations of lawyers to provide advocacy for communities of color.

Social groups that lack a dedicated contingent of lawyers have a harder time in our society, because lawyers play an important role in advancing the interests of their social groups. Admitting lawyers who are members of social groups that are underrepresented in the practicing bar may be seen as fulfilling a social obligation to ensure that all groups have adequate legal representation.

1:33. This a true story, swear to God. Seriously, what's the downside risk of just lying and saying your hispanic or african american on your law school app? How is the school or the Bar or anyone else going to PROVE that you're not black or hispanic? Any attempt would quickly deteriorate into a pretty stereotype-filled, racist exercise ("well, you don't LOOK black". What do blacks LOOK like? You don't ACT hispanic).

In any case, I think some law schools almost welcome lying on the app about race. If you read schools' stats carefully, they say that "xx% of students CLAIMED URM status". It doesn't say this status was confirmed or verified. The schools almost don't WANT to know your true race, as long as they don't get caught, their numbers stay high, and they can CLAIM 20% URM in their brochures.

This is why socio-economic AA is better -- at least that can be verified objectively. But I can claim that I'm black, and who's gonna prove me wrong? How would they?

4:29, unless your friend's birth certificate, AND his parents' identifying information, were also falsified, proving him a liar would be ridiculously simple. Seriously, do you not realize how ludicrous you sound?

Also, race is not the only factor in affirmative action. You can't all be big enough idiots that you actually think it's about race and nothing else. Statistics show that white women are the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action. Affirmative action also (supposedly) helps those from underprivileged socioeconomic backgrounds, and those from underrepresented geographic locations. That you're all turning this into a race debate says much more about you than about the success or lack thereof of any affirmative action policies.

4:20-

Under that rubric, would you, in retrospect, consider Justice Thomas a worthy candidate for AA, considering that many believe him to have thwarted the interests of his particular group?

4:37, just because predictive measures are never one hundred percent accurate is not itself a reason to discontinue their use. Otherwise, law schools would also have to stop considering LSAT scores and GPAs.

4:29: A girl I went to high school with lied and said she was Hispanic on a scholarship application for college. She got the scholarship. She shows up for college and when they decided she was a little fair completed, they asked questions. She ended up having to give the money back but was allowed to remain in school. Her step-dad was Hispanic, which I am assuming made her claim to being Hispanic plausible enough avoid being kicked out.

Oh, and they were very upfront about the fact that being Hispanic was why she got the scholarship (it was a general scholarship given to many students that used a sliding scale based on how many diversity points you scored coupled with points based on GPA and admissions test scores).

4:43-

4:37 is a yes or no question. Please respond either in the affirmative or negative.

4:36 -- I wouldn't completely dismiss the idea that someone can falsely claim URM status. Law schools and bar admissions people don't track down your parents' birth certificates. There also are, essentially, white Hispanic people. Plus, you don't need to be even half URM-descended to claim URM status. So everything can show that you are "white" or "caucasian," but you can claim URM status because somewhere along the line, an ancestor was Native American. (And in fact, I've known some Native Americans who were a little skeptical of some of the people who claim to have some Cherokee ancestry...)

I'm not saying it's common, but it's not unreasonable that someone could lie about their URM status. And there are most certainly people who legitimately claim URM status based on partial ancestry, even though they have lived their lives as white middle-class people.

4:29: DO YOU KNOW HOW RIDICULOUS YOU SOUND? The scam my friend pulled is very plausible, evidenced by the fact that he was successful!

1. No law schools check your freakin birth certificate. At least not Columbia.

2. No law schools line everyone up the 1st day and check your racial appearance against your admissions application claim.

3. Even if a school "caught" you, it would be hilarious to watch the legal and public backlash if they tried to expel you simply for your race. As long as you preserved a little plausible deniability that you have at least a little URM blood in you and that you claimed that on your app in good faith, you'd be ok.

Granted, the scam is problematic for 2 reasons:

1. It's an early adopter game. Once schools get wind of the scam and it's considered a "problem", they will likely start asking for birth certificates, etc. to verify.

2. Law students are naturally pretty risk averse. So this scam is probably most palatable to business school students. Though they do interviews for admissions, which is problematic. Maybe med school students?

Two Observations:

1. It is not surprising that certain professions & institutions do not have racial populations that mirror the general population. This fact in no way singles out discrimination as the only possible explanation.

2. I'll take this one step further, in my opinion, racial minorities in the modern-day U.S. do not face barriers based on their race that are high enough to merit the extreme affirmative action measures that occur at universities and in the workplace. Prejudice will always exist and it goes both ways, i.e. minorities have prejudices about white folks as well.

The prejudice that exists in our country today is minor and in no way explains the vast under-performance of black, hispanic, and native americans relative to whites in the U.S. It also can't account for the "over-performance" of asians. There is something else at work, be it culture, intelligence, etc.

Does anyone have persuasive proof of systematic discrimination? Or this just a blind assumption that assuages white liberal guilt?

4:55 -- This isn't cross examination at trial. People can answer however they want to. And 4:43's response was essentially an objection over relevance (and he's right).

And even if it were a trial, a judge likely would not make a witness answer yes or no to such a loaded, speculative and irrelevant question. But keep on watching those law dramas on TV...

5:28

How was my question "loaded"?

It's yes or no.

If a purpose of affirmative action is to design a law school with a student body that "advanc[es] the interests" of the various ethnicities in the United States, would Justice Thomas, in retrospect, knowing what we know today, be an acceptable candidate for affirmative action?

I'm just curious. That's all. Nobody has to respond, but if they do, I'd really appreciate it if they phrased it in terms of a 'yes' or a 'no'.

Geez...Talk about a hostile crowd...I'm staying here in corporate :)

Can we cut out the court talk? I get enough of that at work.

Hiring people based on the color of their skin? Wrong.

Hiring academics with an eye towards political and intellectual diversity? Maybe not a good idea, but maybe not wrong.

I personally like the idea of some schools with diversity of thought and others without. Many times, having a lot of smart people who agree creates a synergistic effect. See, e.g., The Chicago School.

Federalists dont equal bible thumpers, federaliss= people that think states rights wasn't something the founders pretended to mean and who believe words say what they say and not what we pervert them to mean.

As for the AA arguments, I fail to see how curing racism with racism is going to do anything but breed another generation of racism, but then what do i know.

6:14 is right, AA breeds contempt. Everyone knows that blacks don't deserve the 6-10 point LSAT boost they get in law school admissions (see the Grutter opinion and/or the Sander paper if you don't believe it). The boosts are similar in other admissions contexts. The people going to school these days were born in the 1980s and did not grow up with Jim Crow laws or anything approaching such discrimination; there is nothing about modern America that suggests that such enormous benefits are justified.

5:05/retard: lying on your law school application is the sort of thing that can prevent you from being admitted to the bar. And yes, they do check birth certificates.

"Also, I think that a lingering rational (though rejected by the SC) for affimative action is restitution for past harms."
So, given the past harms, we should make it easier for Jews to get into law school? They were excluded for a long while.
Why is it that some people cling to the supposed past harms idea when most ethnic groups have worked hard and overcome the prejudice.
AA based on race is prejudice. And it only hurts the people the proponents are trying to "help" because, as the old joke goes- if you are going into surgery and have to choose your doctor- would you really choose the black one?

Diversity in law firm= having mixed races from middle to upper class families work in the same office.

Diversity in law firm= having mixed races from middle to upper class families work in the same office.

7:47, I would if he struck me as the doctor best suited to handle my surgery.

Supporters of AA, think of this hypo:
A black 2L with good grades at a good school is sitting in an office with an interviewing associate and the associate is looking at the resume (prob for the 1st time). Honestly, is his/her first thought - AA admission.
AA only hurts minorties. Kill it.

Let's not even get started on some of the athletes that get admitted just because they can throw a ball, yet can't write a complete sentence to save their life.

But what about the fact that at some schools certain teams generate enough cash to support the ENTIRE university year after year after year... Its ok to admit an athlete that brings that kind of contribution...

8:39, it is if s/he is a racist and/or does not know how to think for him/herself.

3:33

Seidman's basic response to the point you raised was that you sound an awful lot like a postmodernist or a relativist -- as in, "we should be skeptical of claims to objective truth, so therefore institutions based on such truth claims [liberal academia] are usually functions of illegitimate power.

It's just odd that conservatives are making those kinds of arguments.

It doesn't sound genuine. Instead, what conservatives and liberals both feel is: "I'm right and you're wrong and the school should hire people who are right like me."

If firms are really into diversity lets see them hire a guy that looks like fifty cent or flava flav...

The amount of hatred for social conservatives on this thread is a pretty telling indication of the type of bias that they meet with in academia. If you read the many hateful comments about social conservatives and insert "black" or "female" into them, they would be considered offensive and unacceptable in polite society.

But intolerance and hatred of the faithful and socially conservative is accepted in academia and other liberal institutions. That is probably enough to convince many brilliant social conservatives to not even try to go into academia.

Hopefully someday, universities and law schools will decide that being politically non-diverse is harmful for their students and their research.