yeah, attend katten's diversity panel and get "whitelisted" by future Biglaw employees.

Why can't law firms just hire people on merit without regard to skin color? It really is that simple.

Candid Discussion Moderator:

"Every single one of you pasty-faced patriarchs is an evil oppressor. I don't care if you do better work than the others, its all racist/sexist evaluations that make it seem so. If law were based on something other than convincing people in court and profits and success, you wouldn't be near the top. Bow to your non-white, non-male peers. Now, let me hear your gripes so I can note down your name and fire you next year for 'unrelated' matters."

Anyone taking this bait is walking into a trap.

This is a ridiculous idea for a panel.

All these "diversity panels" and "diversity meetings" are just CYA by Biglaw because alot of big corporate clients demand that the law firms they hire reflect the community at large.

Biglaw does not care about diversity for social jusitce, race relations or any other touchy feely bs. it is all down to cleints and $$$. But this is biglaw...are you surprised??

Dear White Boys- the law and society discriminates against you because everyone hates a winner. So just bite your lip, smile and nod at the children trying to bring you down to their level.

Dear Kattan White Boys- I think next Tuesday around Noon is your kid's school play, right?

2:49, is that a dig at Katten or Biglaw? Katten is as diverse as next V100 firm. Diverse partners and associates. Diversity in the chairs of large practice groups. The fact that you have WASP and Katten in same paragraph makes me think you really mean all of BIGLAW or do not understand what WASP stands for.

I think it sounds like good event, and why should white males not be allowed discuss diversity, what it means to them and how to encourage it in a meaningful way? I don't really get why this is noteworthy, unless Lat somehow means to imply that it is a bad thing to do. Should straight white guys not be allowed contribute?

I don't care if my law firm is diverse, I care about them winning and keeping the costs down.

Diversity=amorphous phrase no one can define but basically means hiring lesser-qualified applicants to make the company brochures look like a United Colors of Bennetton Ad.

"The best way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

- Chief Justice John Roberts

Total attendance = zero

"As for the panel's exploration of "ways in which white men can help create a more diverse legal profession," here's one answer: THEY CAN LEAVE."

OUCH.

I guess Lat prefers the dark meat.

2:58: Corporations don't care about diversity, they care about profits. It would be a stupid corporation that judged a law firm based on its racial make-up---rather racist, wouldn't you say?

BigLaw is just afraid Al Sharpton/NOW will launch lawsuits and rallies against them if they don't fill a quota. Bad press avoidance=='diversity" initiatives.

The bottom line is this. People are graduating law school with massive debt. The only way for most people to pay off this debt in short order (rather than 30 years) is to secure a job in Biglaw. Biglaw jobs are way oversubscribed. White male law students are not going to be in favor of any policy that lessens their chances of securing one of these jobs. Simple.

You don't really give a sht about diversity when you a looking down the barrel of a $1400 a month loan repayment on $45,000 a year as opposed to $160,000 a year.

2:49 - Huh?

White men can contribute to diversity if they are gay, handicapped, or both.

2:49, spoken like someone who's never had to deal with the barrage of "advice" women and minorities have to deal with all the time, wherein we are told all the ways in which we have to be more like white men if we ever want to get anywhere in the law. The reaction to your proposed modification would be "oh, great. Another person telling us how being ourselves is an inherent disadvantage in the law. Awesome. That's, like, totally news."

I mean, seriously dude. Are you that retarded? I get emails like that ALL THE FUCKING TIME. Jebus Christ, these whiners.

HAHAHAHA. They can hold each other and shake fists at the way the world works. Or talk about their one black friend.

3.04pm

I agree. Corporations care about anything that adversely affects profits, including a Jesse jackson style shakedown and the ensuing bad publicity.

herpes.

2:59, people only hate winners when the winners got to start the race being trotted around in a horse-pulled carriage with servants to fan them and peel their grapes, while the "loser" women and minorities got to start the race half an hour later, and after having their legs tied together and invisible paint slathered on them to make it harder for the judges to tell when they've reached the finish line.

3:03 - I don't think Lat is anti-white-male. I think he is making fun of the idea of "ways in which white men can become and stay engaged in creating a more diverse legal profession."

Here here, 3:09. It's highly ironic that whites don't like to talk about race and racial inequality when whites are ulimately responsible for racial categories and racial injustice in our country. That's a fact.

Slow news day?

are you suggesting that the domains of "white men" and "gay" don't overlap?

3:09, I didn't have a chariot while growing up in a working-middle class family, working since I was in junior high, and earning academic scholarships for college and law school.

3:09 and 3:19, you are entitled to your opinion. But I still do not get what is wrong with this talk. Is this not your point, 3:19, that white males should talk about diversity?

In point of fact, the upper echelons of these firms are run by white men and, like all human beings, they make choices about advancement, whom to give their clients, and whom they like based on a largely unwritten set of factors. A major one of those factors -- as any social science experiment will tell you -- is 'who reminds me of myself.' Younger white dudes will get more chances and be more forgiven for mistakes than people who don't remind senior partners of themselves as a result.

The real problem with these diversity-advancement programs is that it makes some members of "diverse" groups feel stigmatized. But the stigma is undeserved ... diversity programs help self correct a natural problem.

Also, homogeneity is boring.

Put up another Paul Hastings sucks story!

I love all of these "meritocracy" arguments. The only way for white men to be candid at this event is to admit that no one benefits more from affirmative action (a.k.a. White Privilege) more than they do. This whole society, since its very inception, is premised on white male supremacy. So cry me a fucking river, white men. Then get over yourselves. And 3:02, I wish you knew that that Roberts quote is more infamous than famous.

3;15, I did but it would always break down. Finally I realized that in the 20th century, a Chariot was no way to travel. My girlfriend at the time let me borrow her Mustang.

3:09

Wow, 150 years since the end of slavery is one hell of a long half-hour. Nearly 50 years since the Civil Rights Movement is also one hell of a long half-hour.

Maybe what you really want is for all the little children to get ribbons and trophies, regardless of who the best athlete in the race really is. We're all "winners" after all, right?

It shames me to say/type that I have not done a good job of making minorities at my firm feel more welcome. By the looks of things at lunch today and EVERY DAY - I am not the only one.

By the looks of the people on this year's partnership ballot...things like lunching/golfing with associates and other peers is important to ones longetivity in a BIGLAW environment. I always get invited because my presence does not make others uncomfortable.

The proposed meeting is a start.

Not every white male makes partner.

Look at 3:21 / Michael Clayton!

3:15, you still got to start the race on time and with your legs free and no invisible paint.

3:20, good point. It's more like ten hours late, given that racial injustice and gender inequality existed for millenia before the very very very recent trends in the other direction. Regardless, are you actually proposing that, by now, surely all women and minorities (the deserving ones, anyway), MUST have caught up with the white men by now? Wouldn't they have to be FASTER than the white men to do that? Which, in turn, would mean that those who were AS FAST, i.e., EQUALLY GOOD (or, really, better, given the foot-tying and lack of a chariot) are STILL BEHIND??

I mean, have you ever actually RUN a race?

Too much. Katten hasn't exactly seen non-minority partners running for the exits because of their diversity programs. File under "novel ways to get good press for our diversity efforts".

3:19 - the amount of nonsense you were able to pack into so short a post is pretty impressive. The "herpes" commenter earlier made more sense.

If law firms aren't sufficiently diverse without diversity programs, then let's have diversity programs. 3:18 is right: homogeneity is boring.

Clarence Thomas values his Yale Law degree at 15 cents, thanks to "diversity initiatives."

Georgia Law Bans Retailers From Selling 'Pot Candy' To Minors

The funny part of this article is that Senator Stoner brought forth this bill!!!

ATLANTA -- Georgia retailers soon will be banned from selling candy flavored to taste like marijuana to children.

Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue signed a measure into law Wednesday that bans the sale of "marijuana flavored products" to minors -- anyone under 18 -- and calls for a fine of up to $500 for each offense.

It targets businesses that sell the candies with drug-inspired names such as "Kronic Kandy" and "Pot Suckers." The law says the candies promote drug use.

Senator Doug Stoner pushed the bill in the senate. "I don't think that folks are aware this is going on," Stoner told Channel 2 in April. "It's mainly, from what I can tell, particularly targeted to minority communities."

Vote Hemp, a national organization that promotes the use of hemp products and tracks legislation, says the measure would make Georgia the first state to ban the sale of the candy to minors.

as a straight white guy, i agree that 3:18 has a point. a lot of "my people" don't see how easy they've had it (even those of us who grew up working middle-class).

however, the suggestion that b/c i'm straight and white, i should stay out of the way re: diversity initiatives is stupid and insulting. it suggests that b/c i'm straight and white, i couldn't possibly appreciate the problem, or be interested in solving it.

should people only be involved in activities related to thwir own experiences? should i refuse to represent a domestic violence victim unless i've been abused? the logic is the same.

3:28, I'll buy it from him, then. I'll even pay him fifty whole dollars for it.

3:19

I don't need some "white male supremacy" hater telling me whether the quote is considered "famous" or "infamous" for me to judge the validity of his point. By the way, who do you think decides such things for the rest of us? Ah yes, those same libs that tell me I should just bend over and take affirmative action up the rear for my own good.

Do me a favor, take a look at Africa and tell me about the view. Are you going to blame that one on "the man" too? I guess it's always easier to blame someone else than to accept responsibility for making your own way of life.

Guys in my high school used to sit around and talk about how diversity in chess club made us feel all the time, it was no big deal.

In the long run minority scholarships will help whites--- the lower evolutionary bar leads to whites having to work harder to get as far as those on affirmative action, which in turn will reduce the comparative evolutionary fitness of minorities. From an evolutionary standpoint, the best thing to "do for" us minorities is to leave us alone-- it's the same thing with eyeglasses: the more people with eyeglasses, the less pressure there is for people to have good eyes, and in the long run the whole human race is affected as a result. Quit giving us a golf handicap! We can succeed without your white handouts!

"Corporations don't care about diversity, they care about profits. It would be a stupid corporation that judged a law firm based on its racial make-up---rather racist, wouldn't you say?"

Go ask Walmart, which has very specific diversity requirements that must be met if they are to hire a law firm. They don't want the cost of being mau-maued by the Raimbow Coalition.

I honestly don't care if they have some extra cocktail hours or networking events for various minority/gender/orientation/whatever groups - just another chance to eat lame food while not getting drunk and chatting like an amiable idiot. When diversity begins to impact actual career progression is when it becomes an issue - sure white men may have built this country and my law firm, but sadly for me they were OTHER white men - no relatives of mine. The fact that we share a skin pallor doesn't make my family rich or make me a legacy at an Ivy League school.

"Corporations don't care about diversity, they care about profits. It would be a stupid corporation that judged a law firm based on its racial make-up---rather racist, wouldn't you say?"

Go ask Walmart, which has very specific diversity requirements that must be met if they are to hire a law firm. They don't want the cost of being mau-maued by the Raimbow Coalition.

I honestly don't care if they have some extra cocktail hours or networking events for various minority/gender/orientation/whatever groups - just another chance to eat lame food while not getting drunk and chatting like an amiable idiot. When diversity begins to impact actual career progression is when it becomes an issue - sure white men may have built this country and my law firm, but sadly for me they were OTHER white men - no relatives of mine. The fact that we share a skin pallor doesn't make my family rich or make me a legacy at an Ivy League school.

Clients do demand that firms have women and minorities in the legal ranks. That is true. But, I've never been in a deal where someone has said "Hey, this deal team is too white male!" Clients want the best people to do their work. If that's a woman, great. If not, also great. The woman can do someone else's work and they can claim credit for having hired a diverse law firm.

I also think, that if they had their way, law firms would hire only gay men in all colors of the rainbow. (no pun intende- ok, maybe just a little.) Gays have no kids, no part time status needs, none of all that baggage that the women and staight men have. Lesbians work too, until they get the mommy urge and end up with septuplets.

You're all a bunch of whiners. There's no shortage of white men in law firms. And, Jews and Asians are passed up over underqualified white guys all the time. Stop whining and get back to work.

Jews are no longer an officially oppressed minority at law firms - we were told that during our diversity training. Members of the Tribe, according to the high priestesses of diversity, we are now fully-fledged white oppressors.

Rejoice.!

Joaquin, you say "some white supremacy hater" as if I'm supposed to feel bad for being one. And no one here was jamming any opinion up anyone's rear but you, Mr. "I Quote Roberts and Think I'm Doing Big Things." Why don't you just sit this one out?

I like how when libs are saying that white males are responsible for racial injustice, want to work with and promote people who look like them, and so forth, they (a) in the former case, are generalizing about an entire group (and expressing a willingness for the end to justify the means); and (b) in the latter, are making vague assertions that aren't supported by any facts.

If I do the same thing, but slant it the other way, I could say something like this:

Young black men are responsible for the majority of violent crimes in this country. We should lock them all up in prison before they have the opportunity to commit crimes. They are much more likely to attack white people than for white people to attack them. I think it's because they don't like white people and want to get rid of them.

How acceptable is it to say something like that? The diversity-mongers use the same argument tactics that the KKK uses, only flipped 180 degrees.

@3:38

Ouch. So I guess now we get to march people to the camps? Bogus. Its well known that even at "Jewish" firms, we get shoved into "back office" departments like tax or labor rather than litigation or securities work. Hey, Jewish guy, go spend 50 hours in the Library. You guys are good at that!

@3:38

Ouch. So I guess now we get to march people to the camps? Bogus. Its well known that even at "Jewish" firms, we get shoved into "back office" departments like tax or labor rather than litigation or securities work. Hey, Jewish guy, go spend 50 hours in the Library. You guys are good at that!

"I wish you knew that that Roberts quote is more infamous than famous."

Jesus....go back to DailyKos, simpleton.

3:33(1) -- so are you also opposed to technology and medicine? The evolutionary damage they cause is astounding.

"You're all a bunch of whiners. There's no shortage of white men in law firms. And, Jews and Asians are passed up over underqualified white guys all the time. "

Yes, the underrepresentation of Jews and Asians in American law is shocking. Truly shocking.

Really, think before you write.

The Katten people should cancel the meeting and read this thread. It shows the spectrum of white male beliefs and why white men won't be candid.

I' m gay and latino. I'm never getting fired.

Suck that, biatches!!!

3:09-
However you make yourself feel better. In the dark, when there's no one else but you and your conscience, you know that you only have yourself to blame.

kisses to teh haters!
2:59

Anyone alleging racially/sexually based discrimination better provide one thing: proof.

You can't simply say, "Because they're not enough X in this firm, it is racist/sexist against X."

You must prove the firm is deliberately disqualifying candidates from the X pool simply because they are from the X pool.

But of course, proof doesn't work for the AA crowd. Only quotas.

@3:39 --

"I like how when libs are saying that white males are responsible for racial injustice"

Uh... who, exactly, said that? I don't know many people who BLAME white men for being privileged -- we just want you to ACKNOWLEDGE it and be willing to accommodate those who don't have the same privileges. Reading that as "blame" is defensive and immature, and really a non-starter where any sort of dialogue is concerned.

I get so sick of people talking about this as though it's a blame game. Who the fuck cares about blame? The point is, we have a problem, and we can try to fix it in a way that is fair and equitable and recognizes the unique difficulties faced by some and not others, or we can sit in the corner and pout about people trying to "take away what's rightfully mine." Back to daycare with you, then!

"Yes, the underrepresentation of Jews and Asians in American law is shocking [sarcasm]"

Boy, someone's never been outside of NY/LA/SF...

So in other words, Corporations only want diversity in themselves to prevent lawsuits agianst themselves. When they outsource something---for example, law work to a firm---they don't care about racial makeup, unless the firm is deliberately discriminating.

Basically, Al Sharpton's not launching another bogus suit agianst Walmart if it's law firm isn't filling his quotas---he'll launch it against the firm.

3:38-
I was officially told the same thing. Then again I work in NYC. Guess we can't play the victim card huh?

The Chief Justice stole his quote from the dissent below in the Ninth Circuit. He changed it just enough not to have to cite Justice Bea, who said:

"The way to end racial discrimination is to stop discriminating by race."

426 F.3d at 1222

So give credit where credit is due.

That invitation should have included a picture of Admiral Ackbar, with "It's A Trap!" written in a speech bubble above his head.

You'd have to be crazy to speak "candidly" about this topic.

3:48: So would you be the first or second in line at the lynching if a white man ever spoke honestly about this diversity claptrap?

3:51: you want me to acknowledge your inferiority based your skin color, correct? sorry, I'm not into racism.

3:53: Possibly, though the big driver is still the corporate client questions about this stuff.

White guys are so funny. Better have black and brown kids because soon it won't be a white world and those kids will be the ones arguing for diversity. All you can do about it is to make sure they have good AA skills. Better attend some of these panels.

Why is it when a minority achives anything, it's because of preferences, when a white person achieves anything it's merit (and not white privilige)

And if you really want to have a candid "panel" about diversity and white male associates just recor them going out to lunch or playing softball together. I'm sure you'll hear plenty of racist complaints about "diversity" and all that

Accord, 3:33(1).

I don't think I'd ever go be candid at one of these meetings, but I guess it's nice of the firm to try. Who knows, maybe some people will be candid and won't get screwed for it, and then everyone will be able to tell the truth about this stuff and disagree respectfully.

It's worth a try. Wish my firm would try it, though I'd want to see a partner or two break the ice with some real candor before I open my mouth. I value my job more than this kind of political expression.

3:52: Or Boston, Dallas, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Washington D.C., Chicago, San Jose, Oakland, Atlanta, Houston, St. Louis, San Diego, Seattle, Portland, Albany, Indianapolis....

You're right. I'm sheltered.

I'm a male and I don't always understand why females complain so much about unfairness in law firms. But I at least realize that as a male I have a different worldview so it's probably difficult for me to understand. It's amazing that whites don't realize that they have a different worldview and can't comprehend what it's like for minorities in BIGLAW.

3:58: Yes, you're obviously right, the proof that "white privilege" is all around us is so obvious. Do you have proof?

I'd be no where in my firm without mentors and peers that were watching my back and opening doors for me. I like to think that it is because I do phenomenal work, but I know better. Anyone (white, black, yellow, etc) that does not agree with the above statement is full of it.

I think Chris Rock said it best: "Not one of you White people in this audience (it was a large venue) would trade places with me.....AND I'M RICH!"

I offer a simple test: get up from your desk, pop your head out into the hallway, and look left and right. If most of the partners you see are white males, then you don't need this panel. The white males are doing just fine.

3:39: I think what he meant was not that "white supremacy" is acceptable, which it obviously isn't, but that you fling around such callous labels to silence white people from expressing their true feelings. Many white people don't deride the obviously racist implications of AA b/c they know that they'll immediately be denounced as racist themselves. It's a silencing tactic, and you used it very effectively.

P.S. Does it really infuriate you that much to hear someone quote a conservative Supreme Court justice? Maybe you'd be more amenable if he'd quoted a race-baiting hustler like Sharpton or Jackson.

P.P.S. Let's see, being on the wrong end of AA practices for law school admissions and/or career advancement simply b/c one is not a "protected class" pretty much constitutes taking it up the rear w/ a smile. Bite the pillow, bitches!

Too bad this program won't be in public. I would certainly benefit. As a white male COA clerk and former fed. dist. clerk, I am worked with 2 white male co-clerks at the DC and am working with 3 white male co-clerks at the COA. Since I'm joining a firm this fall, I will need to put myself in the diversity mantra and could certainly use this and other programs to help ensure that I understand the great importance of a diverse work environment.

Hey 3:58, the reason why anytime the gays or minorities achieve something its based on a "preference" is because it is. In a world where gays, disabled people and minorities are given preferential treatment such as special scholarships, admission to the best law schools, based upon the color of their skin, then when they do something based on their own merit, people believe that it's because another handout is being given. Sucks to be stereotyped in that way, don't it? Same is true for all the Middleeasterners who are angry to be stereotyped at the airport as terrorists. Yes, it's a bummer, but then again, there weren't 21 white guys tying red bands around their heads and flying planes into the WTC. Preferences are the next stereotype. That's why they suck. When a person of color or a gay person achieves something, it shouldn't be considered to be a result of "preference." But when the preference has been given in the past, what do you expect people to believe?

I will be at this event and will gladly report on the content of the discussion. It seems as if this event has been promoted across Chicago for any and all to attend - CLE Credit will be awarded to those who participate.

3:56, I appreciate your sentiment. However, since this is a white male event, I think a Han Solo "I've got a bad feeling about this" caption would be more appropriate.

Heck, I'd go to this panel just so I could say I was with the program on AA. I personally hate it but if clients told me to hire martians I'd either find some or make some.

If you wouldn't do the same then I respect you but you'll never make equity partner.

This is event is open to any attorney in the city - I suggest those in Chicago attend and receive the 1.5 hours of CLE credit!

The real question is why Katten associates of all colors are fleeing for the exits.

Try bringing in more work Katten partners, so that associates of all races, creeds, nationalities, and orientations have the chance to prove themselves, rather than organizing awkward discussions that will take associates away from the billable hours of work you should be providing them.

Why is there no affirmative action for Internet connection? Minorities probably would really enjoy Internet.

lol @ 3:57. Your retort was so nonsensical I had to go back and check the time stamp to see who you were responding to. I love how privileged folks find it so easy to dismiss their (our) privilege as "superiority" and a lack of privilege as "inferiority." (This is precisely the sort of thing that's led to the disturbing trend of anti-intellectualism in our country.) But hey, why be part of the solution when being part of the problem is SO MUCH MORE FUN!!

Btw, genius, I'm a white woman from a rich family. And, unlike you, I am willing to acknowledge how far above the pack that automatically puts me (while I'm still well below white men, except those in much much lower economic classes, or those who are flamboyantly gay from a young age, living in a homophobic part of the country). I guess you still have some growing up to do before you'll accept the fact that you did not "earn" ANYTHING you were born with. Your American citizenship (assuming you are a citizen), your whiteness (assuming you are white), your maleness (etc.), your intellect (that one I now have a bit of cause to question, though...), etc., etc. was all AN ACCIDENT OF BIRTH. None of it is "merit." Your hard work is merit -- guess what, all those minorities who you think "aren't as smart" as you have almost certainly worked a hell of a lot harder than you did to get where they are, even if their LSAT is a little below yours. Which, oops, means they have more "merit" than you do. Unless you reached down from heaven and magically CHOSE who you would be at birth (and even then, like, how selfish), you have about a gazillion unearned privileges. Show some fucking gratefulness. Like, at least get to church or temple or something.

Law firms across the nation to laughable socially engineered failures!

4:05 (1):

[Slow clap.] Nicely done. I only wish those in favor of AA got this.

4:06: I think Ackbar's is funnier, if only because of the panicked way he says it. But Han Solo applies too.

"3:52: Or Boston, Dallas, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Washington D.C., Chicago, San Jose, Oakland, Atlanta, Houston, St. Louis, San Diego, Seattle, Portland, Albany, Indianapolis"

*spits drink at screen*

Houston? Atlanta? D.C.? Seriously? If you're gonna talk out of your ass, at least try to make it credible (and having lived in, worked, and/or interviewed in many of those places, I can say with authority you're pretty definitely wrong)

Thanks for the laugh though.

There is a problem with conflating white privilege with AA. White privilege won't get you into Michigan with a 152 on the LSAT. AA will. AA won't make you welcome and well-connected in BIGLAW. White privilege will. Many white men don't object to minority networking events and additional efforts to make minorities feel welcome and connected. Many white men do have a problem with AA, especially when they read Grutter and see exactly how big the numbers disparity is. Any worthwhile discussion of diversity needs to be a little more nuanced than "by any means necessary" v. "absolutely identical treatment."

Katten is a Jewish firm. Very few, if any, Asians in the partnership ranks. Check the NALP stats. Same as Proskauer, Paul Weiss, and many other NYC/LA /Chicago big law firms.

I have a dream that my children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Affirmative action supporters, why do you hate equal civil rights and oppose the beloved Martin Luther King, Jr.?

And I would gladly trade places with Chris Rock. Where do I sign up?

I'm Dominican and firmwide emails about "diversity cocktails" etc. always make me go, "Really? Why?" This is mostly because my caucasian colleagues/friends drop by and ask me (as if I'm an authority) what people would think if they went. One is off-the-boat Lithuanian--does he count? Here in NYC he's a lot more diverse than my Washington Heights born n' raised butt, even if my culo is brown and his is white. Shit just breeds needless resentmant and distracts people from their work. If you're brown and in the firm, you don't need cocktails to revel in your diversity. The firm just showed you they care by hiring you.

4:08:
Limousine Liberal.

She'll be running the seminar, no doubt. Watch out, we pasty-faced patriarchs!

Oh, and I love how now our intellects are accidents of our birth. So no one develops their brains through hard work and study---its all racially predetermined.

Why does this limousine liberal suddenly make the case that white people are inherently smarter???!

Thank goodness Clarence Thomas sees through this double-talk and coded racial inferiority junk. 15 cents is prolly too high, though.

More accurate 4:05 --

Okay, yeah, straight white males get lots of unfair privileges. But if we fix it, people won't think you're as good as us. You're better off without AA, because when you DO finally make it to the top, having worked five times as hard as we have to get there, people will recognize that you're probably almost as good as us -- MAYBE EVEN EQUALLY GOOD!!! Isn't that totally worth it??

4:04- You are now leaving the meritocracy for the zoo-ocracy. Remember, it's not what you do or who you are, but what you look like.

4:11---having worked in two of those cities you mention and done business in the third, I can tell you're only interviewing at the WASPM firms if you're not finding a good number of Jewish and Asian associates and partners around. But what would a good lib hypocrite be without a worldview based on Hollywood movies and ivy league multiculturalism "theory"?

But even the diversity naysayers must admit - the food is wayyyyy better with diversity.

I think they should just have potlucks and have everyone bring their own cultural dish. Everyone is happier when they are mackin' down.

Finally, all the complaining on this thread makes me want to call the waaaaaah!bulance on you all.

"Limousine Liberal."

Oh crud. I've been bested by a label! Drat and confound it all!! How can I argue against such pointed analysis?!!

"So no one develops their brains through hard work and study---its all racially predetermined."

BIOLOGICALLY predetermined, asshole (within limits). That your mind jumps automatically to "race," which is a tiny part of DNA, shows just how ugly you are inside. I guess you've never, ever been treated unfairly in your life, and measures of "merit" ALWAYS get it totally, completely right.

4:15:

Good points all.

Just because you have black skin does not mean you have been disadvantaged. Most people I know who are minoroties at Biglaw have two professional parents, and Princeton undergrad degrees. The truly underprivileged are stuck in dreadful public schools in places like DC and Baltimore and never even make it to a college, never mind college, law school and then Biglaw.

Why in the world would any sane white male want to lessen white privilege?

@4:16

Or, put differently, I guess you also "earned" your fancy private schools growing up, eh? Totally the result of all your hard work in the womb surviving to birth to a rich white family and all that. Nicely done!

My firm only hires women and minorities for support staff and janitorial duties. It is heaven.

"White privilege won't get you into Michigan with a 152 on the LSAT. AA will."

I guess having a rich daddy no longer counts as "white privilege." Interesting analytical choice.

Lack of diversity at law firms is a miscarriage of justice.

4:08, if you want to reward hard work and struggles through life, fine. No white male would object to that as long as it's done for everyone. But why do you automatically assume that someone's who is black or Hispanic always struggled through life? Isn't that a little...racist, from your limousine liberal perspective? When Obama's children apply for college, can you credibly claim that they should get a boost because they had such a hard life growing up? Sure, let's just ignore the entire black middle class.

Rewarding hard work means giving a boost to the poor whites as well as the poor blacks, not just the poor blacks and the wealthy blacks. Last time I checked, there are more poor whites than poor blacks in America.

4:22--
Ahem,

1. Asserting biological predetermination in intellect necessarily asserts racial predetermination in intellect. Race is a large subcategory of biology. Your argument, therefore, inherently assumes racial disparity in intellect.

2. You did not argue within limits previously. Now you are. I suppose you have a Richard Dawkins-type model for proving within what limits their are and which races are smarter. Once again, you argue for racial superiority.

3. AA is about race. The fact that 4:16 talked about race is perfectly logical, given this context. To attack him/her for the statement about race shows you're chasing your own tail on this issue.

4:25:

let's have a contest. You find all the white privileged kids who got in on Daddy's money, and I'll find all the minorities who got in because of their minority status. Then, we'll remove them all from the law schools and law firms. Fair, no?

Wait, why are you backing away?

Agreed. 4:08 = Limousine liberal, or as is the case nowadays with man-made global warming hysteria, 4:08 = Lear jet liberal.

4:05 = Greatness

4:13 = Good point. You can't reconcile the underpinnings of MLK's speech (content of character, not color of skin) w/ the blatantly discriminatory nature of AA. But, hey, why not have your cake and eat it too?

Let's not judge non-white-hetero-males by their color/sexuality/gender, unless it benefits them. Then it's OK. White guilt? Yes We Can!

I don't know, 4:19.

What would a good ol' entitled conservative racist be without a worldview based on lazy stereotypes and anti-progress "theory"?

4:23:

Assumes all white males went to private schools. Fancy ones at that. Amazing.

I love when limousine liberals merely turn racism and sexism against others and pretend that two wrongs make a right.

4:27:
Race is just as much a social construct as it is a biological construct.

4:04, Was that a shameless plug to show off your credentials? Something tells me you won't be well liked at your firm regardless of your skin color, might want to stick to working in environments with 5 or less people.

4:32= Ethnic studies major.

Does anyone else get the feeling that all the commenters on this post who used the phrase "libs" "liberals" "limosine liberals" or any variation thereof are all actually the same person? And boy, is he bitter.

Why all the fuss about an old, old wooden ship that was used in the Civil War era?

Typical white people.

- Barack Obama

4:32, you're an idiot. The dividing lines between races are a social construct, but the actual racial differences are based on biological differences. Thus, someone who is 1/4 black would be considered probably white in Brazil and black in America, but nobody sane would argue that there is no biological difference between whites as defined by Hillary Clinton and blacks as defined Condoleeza Rice.

Perhaps, 4:37. Or perhaps there's a large number of people who dislike AA and are voicing their opinions. but that can't be right, because most people are good honest libs-liberal-limosine[sic] liberals who believe that white males are the devil incarnate plotting world domination since the dawn of womynkind.

I don't think I have ever even spoken with a minority. I have seen them on TV though. They look scary.

God DAMN white people!!

--Barack Hussein Obama

"Asserting biological predetermination in intellect necessarily asserts racial predetermination in intellect. Race is a large subcategory of biology. Your argument, therefore, inherently assumes racial disparity in intellect."

Oh my God. Did you intentionally misread my comments or are you actually that stupid? Yes, both race and some range of IQ are, from what science can tell, biologically pre-determined. Not everyone is the same skin color. Also, not everyone is of the same intellect. Certain skin colors give you more advantages. Certain IQ ranges also give you more advantages. Some who has both (i.e., advantageous skin color and advantageous IQ range) will be better off than someone who has only one (e.g., advantageous IQ range). So the reference to the commenter's "intellect," clearly misplaced, was to point out that it is not due to "merit" that anyone was born with a higher IQ range (a statement I now retract). It is also not due to merit that anyone had the advantages and options at his fingertips to move closer to the high end of that range than the low end (if, in fact, this happened). So someone with only one advantage (e.g., IQ range) and no or few other advantages (e.g., whiteness, maleness, American citizenship, rich parents, propensity to health, etc.) will almost always APPEAR not to have that advantage to the same extent as the highly advantaged individual, due to the other factors OVER WHICH NEITHER OF THEM HAD ANY CONTROL. And yet, that person has to work harder than the other -- much, much harder -- to get anywhere near where he is, while he wallows in his racist confirmation bias and assumes that ANY of this has much of ANYTHING to do with "merit.." It sure must be nice to have been born with so much "merit."

"You did not argue within limits previously. Now you are. I suppose you have a Richard Dawkins-type model for proving within what limits their are and which races are smarter. Once again, you argue for racial superiority."

Again, you betray your laziness, ignorance, and/or poor intellect. I would have thought that it would be obvious that "intellect" meant "IQ range," but I guess I overestimated those of you who actually thought, apparently, that I meant "someone can be born with an IQ of exactly 134, and this is biologically predetermined." I loathe Dawkins for many reasons. Once again, that you and your buddy AUTOMATICALLY tie in intellect with race demonstrate only that YOU are the racists.

"AA is about race. The fact that 4:16 talked about race is perfectly logical, given this context. To attack him/her for the statement about race shows you're chasing your own tail on this issue."

Actually, AA is about a lot of things, of which race is one. My original post mentioned several, and, um, I even said I'm a woman. Like, duh, bright red target for something else I'm obviously thinking about when I talk about affirmative action. And I can't believe that in 2008 you aren't aware of the fact that the largest beneficiaries of AA have been white women. Actually, given the rest of your comment, I can.

4:35 = 4:04's co-clerk

THE MEETING IS OPEN TO ALL IN CHICAGO....

1.5 CREDITS OF CLE

yes, but remember 4:43, they're the victims of racism/oppression in 90% of the television shows.

Reminds me of a TV writer who once opined that white males made up 75% of all the criminals shown on fictional cop shows.He felt like he was being stereotyped.

Hooray for diversity potluck - biglaw to ponsit and adobo!
Boohoo to diversity forums which make everyone grouchy.

4:32 If I wanted to plug my credentials, I would not post as a guest. You missed my point entirely, showing an inability to grasp any subtlety. 4:18(2) got it and I do appreciate him/her not pointing out the grammar error in my fast typing. Read his/her post. Very truly yours, 4:04.

4:32 If I wanted to plug my credentials, I would not post as a guest. You missed my point entirely showing an inability to grasp any subtlety. 4:18(2) got it and I do appreciate him/her not pointing out the grammar error in my fast typing. Read his/her post. Very truly yours, 4:04.

I am still scared of minorities. I am convinced they want to take away all my worldly possessions at gunpoint and then go to town.

It's so cute how the racists have found a name-calling tactic that makes them feel superior and justified in not addressing any actual arguments. "Limousine liberals" -- did you guys think that up all by yourselves? And it's an alliteration too! You guys get a gold star in your coloring books!!

4:46, what exactly is wrong with providing preferences for those born with superior intellectual abilities (biologically predetermined) so they and society can better harness that advantage? Why should a school reject an Einstein simply because he didn't actually earn his smart genes?
There is no equivalence between schools giving a boost for being born smart and giving a boost for being born black.

Why don't you ask the NBA to not give preferences to those born with superior physical abilities (biologically predetermined), especially as the racial balance is a bit skewed.

"... why women and minority lawyers always get staffed on matters for certain clients. (Answer: It's because the clients demand it, which explains pretty much everything in Biglaw.)"

That excuse won't hold water for Wal-Mart or Wendy's, and it shouldn't for Biglaw either.

There is nothing wrong with disliking AA and being against it. As a latino, I know many minorities who are against AA as they believe it clouds their personal achievements. But I cannot stand white folks who talk about how race shouldnt be a consideration or we are all people or racism isnt a problem in this country. You cant CREATE a problem, allow it live on for centuries, grudgingly give it up some time later, where the institutions of wealth and privilege have been cemented making it harder for new comers to join, and all of a sudden say all is FAIR now lets allow pure meritocracy to decide where we fall in line just because you dont want to admit a social system benefited you by excluding groups of people from the playing field for centuries. Get with it...at least admit there are millions of lives in this country: Native American, Blacks, and California/Texas/New Mexico Native born Mexicans who would have had different lives and their descendants would have had different lives had they been allowed to participate fully in american society as free men with all the rights and privileges afforded to them by the constitution.

4:46=

At least you retract your racial IQ assumptions somewhat.

1. AA is about race. It was born out of the civil rights movement for blacks. Title IX was an addendum that black leaders acceded to to allow for greater support. It was born from the black civil rights movement. Period.

2. Your convoluted answer to the criticisms is overwhelmingly filled with assumptions you've gathered about white males and minorities, none of which you have proven. But to jettison a few---
-You assume white maleness isan advantage to gaining a higher IQ.
-You assume the options to enlarging IQ are enhanced by white maleness--except that dropping a kid off at a public library and making him read for 8 hours is all the "advantage" you need to raise your IQ.
--Your assumptions would argue that white males should dominate professional sports--they have the $$ for coaches, the nicer neighborhoods with playing fields, the weight rooms, the leisure time, access to better medical care, etc. Except they don't. I could go on with a list of my own gerrymandered "advantages" that would justify this assumption, just as you gerrymander a list to suit your purpose of proving that white males are unfairly advantaged in intellect and success and need to be AA'd out of existence.

Now get back in your prius and drive back to your townhouse. Your expresso machine just kicked on and the Dave Matthews concert begins at 8.

Stinks to be stereotyped, eh?

Wow, 4:46. You sound really angry and bitter. Are you that incapable of expressing yourself in a calm, reasoned way and without resort to ad homs?

Vinny, seriously? Did you like read two sentences, decide you disagreed, and then start writing? Or did you just get confused by all the big words in my comment?

I never said there was anything inherently wrong with a preference for higher natural intellect, as -- you are correct -- smarter people TEND, generally, to come up with better ideas and do more to aid progress in a society. What I DID say was that some people who HAVE THAT HIGHER INTELLECT are unfairly disadvantaged because of other characteristics over which they have no control. This is really not so hard to understand.

5:00:
You make the point for me. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Race is hardly a biological construct. Human beings are 99.99% identical. The .01% is the variation you would see if you lined up a 100 different people (including melanin) and then discussed the differences in their appearances. Race, as understood in the US is only, and can never be more than, a social construct.

It is pretty obvious that racial inequality is more a result of sub-standard education at the elementary school level than anything else. The problem being that by the time the poorer minority kids get to college, they rarely have the same foundation of knowledge as the more affluent (and often white) kids. Thus, even programs like the ones in Texas which take the top 10% from each high school automatically (as a way to make it fair for everyone in admissions), actually end up doing too little too late.

!!!!SOLUTION!!!

The solution is actually really simple. Take public education away from the states (and cut my property taxes in the process) and let the federal government run a k-12 system in much the same way they run the DODDS (Department of Defense) school systems. That way k-12 is a lot like the LSAT or the BAR exam - it sucks equally for everyone. If parents want to send their kids to private schools, fine - not much you can do about that since their parents were going to send them anyway. Thay are usually the minority anyway at public universities (parents have $$ to get Chaz, Brooks, and Jalin into fancy high dollar institutions that crave fatty donations).

That way - no more complaining from anyone and no more need for racial preference (and the infamous bonus points) in college admissions process.

If everyone gets a fair shake, it is all good right?

!!1ONE!!

I'm voting for McCain.

Since when did anyone say life was fair and everyone should be given the same opportunities? That isn't how life works. Some people are smarter than others. Some people can play sports. Some people can draw or paint or sing or whatever. Some people have rich parents or get lucky and fall into the right business venture that makes them millions or even billions. People aren't equal and don't (and will never) have the same opportunities. That is just how life works. Get over it.

this whole discussion simply establishes one of the things all humans have in common -- we like to preserve whatever is in our interest. minorities and women will favor diversity programs because it benefits them. White men will oppose such programs and seek to preserve whatever benefits they get out of so called white privilege because it is in their interest to do so.

But i still don't get what all the hoopla is about. Even with purported diversity programs, minorities still make up a very small percentage of bigfirm lawyers and an almost microscopic percentage of bigfirm partners.

5:00: Why don't you just admit that America kicks the sh*t out of all minorities' countries of origin (i.e., Africa, South America, etc.), and that minorities are far better off here than there. Oh yeah, then go ahead and admit that this country was made by white men - those same white men who are now subjugating their own self-interests for the benefit of your ass in the name of political correctness. Go on, admit it.

But 5:08, we can CHANGE how life works. YES WE CAN!!!!

5:04:
Race is a biological construct. Your biology determines your racial makeup. Trying to argue these social construct is ridiculous sociological double talk to try to justify findings of racism.

A medical doctor can determine a person's race from a post-mortum examination, even by only examining the skeleton and nothing more. Arguing that biology and race have no relation--and that it's all in your head and from your forefathers---is the kind of stupid logic that makes people laugh at ethnic studies majors.

5:09:
Except you ignore the numbers of white males who support AA and the numbers of minorities against AA.

But I'll assume you'll chalk this up to "self-loathing outliers" and remain content that people do not strive for idealized principles of justice/fairness.

Except for 4:46, who knows what she's talking about (maybe because she got a good education at private school) all of you should STFU about biology and intelligence, biology and race, because you really know NOTHING about either.

"Race is a large subcategory of biology."

Really? Genetics is a large subcategory of biology. But differences between ethnic groups/subgroups, are a vanishingly small cateogry of genetics. And most of what is different among ethnic groups/subgroups has to do with the prevalence of certain diseases, which has to do with the bottleneck effect. Being smart is always selected for. But the type of poor childhood that many of our inner city (and rural white poor) students are faced with has a severe negative effect on IQ.

Also, there is something called "stereotype threat." People who are reminded before tests that their group (female, certain minority) is "worse" at grasping the tested material than a majority member--i.e., a white guy, do worse than they otherwise would. So racism matters in all kinds of concrete ways, but "racial" genetic differences are vanishingly small.

"Race, as understood in the US is only, and can never be more than, a social construct."

Spoken like a typical law student with some shite social "sciences" degree. Your useless major could have at least taught you how to use commas properly.

PSA: all white doodz (except teh gays, irish, jewz, or accenty off the boat-types)

We are meeting at Harry's Bar at 5:30 for cocktails. There we will discuss current events and our on-going efforts to keep everyone else stupid, self-destructive, and un-appreciated.

After that we will go out on Chadwick's dad's yacht for a little sailing and an argument over which prep school was better.

Then, we'll get our weekly "White Privilege" intelligence enhancement shots. After a hearty laugh, we'll congratulate ourselves on how we are a strawman and scapegoat for the personal dissatisfaction and disappointments in the lives of everyone not like us.

(then we'll wake up, sigh, and get back to work, as the women left to be with their kids and the URMs are out at some window dressing reception thingy)

5:03, let's go back to what you said:

"your intellect (that one I now have a bit of cause to question, though...), etc., etc. was all AN ACCIDENT OF BIRTH. None of it is "merit." Your hard work is merit -- guess what, all those minorities who you think "aren't as smart" as you have almost certainly worked a hell of a lot harder than you did to get where they are, even if their LSAT is a little below yours. Which, oops, means they have more "merit" than you do."

You're saying that someone who is not as intelligent but is of the right racial color is more worthy than someone who just had the "accident of birth" of being born smart but unfortunately white. In other words, give a boost for being black (EVEN if they don't also have that higher intellect and is not as smart) before giving one for being smart.

If you can't read your own comments, this is hopeless. You never said anything about people of equal higher intellect but disadvantaged by race. If they had that equal intellect, they would not need affirmative action. The whole point of affirmative action is to have Michigan admit someone with a 152 LSAT (hardly "higher intellect" at that level).

5:15- whatever you tell yourself to justify your crappy life.

5:02, I retracted nothing. I can't do anything about your poor reading skills; I was interested enough in the argument that I bothered to clarify, and it seems now you somewhat understand better what I said.

As for the rest of your comments... I'm torn whether I should even bother. They're completely and utterly disconnected from reality. You don't want to believe being a white male is an advantage? Seriously? Good Lord, then, go ahead and wallow in ignorance and I will thank God that there are other thoughtful people in the world who understand the virtue of progress. As for being dropped off at the library, that's a great idea. Why don't you try dropping off a black kid at the nice public library (you know, the one with the good books and plenty of computer terminals) and just let him go at it for 8 hours straight. I'm sure NO ONE will bother him or challenge his right to be there or assume he is stealing things or throw him out or arrest him for dealing drugs (because everyone knows that's what black kids do). Yeah, he'll have THE EXACT SAME opportunities as a white kid if all you do is drop him off at the library, you know, with your car that you can afford regardless of wealth and your free time that you have regardless of station. And teaching? Waay overrated. We should just fire all the teachers. Nope, all our kids need is the library.

Re sports -- are you that ignorant of history? Black dominance in sports is an incredibly recent phenomenon (given the fact that, um, they didn't used to be allowed to PLAY THEM), and the rise in the number and quality of black athletes has been accompanied by -- surprise, surprise -- stigmatization of the pursuit of professional sports as a "legitimate" career, instead of something you just do in college before you go on to get a "real" job in law or medicine (although watching it, spending money on it, and betting on it is still totally legit).

And lol @ you stereotyping me. Because, yeah, it's sooooo embarrassing and harmful to be stereotyped as someone who cares about the environment and has the money and education to act on it, and -- gasp! -- *drinks espresso*. OMG, how will I ever live down the shame of having a nice home and going to concerts! Yeah, stereotyping rich white people is totally EXACTLY THE SAME as stereotyping poor black people (or really, any black people).

5:03, that is SO FUNNY. I was just going to ask you the same question. OMG Jinx!

5:10.

So wrong. Within the group of "caucasoids" there is a great deal of variety wrt to skull types (i.e. brachycephalic skulls, etc.) and certain people of "other races" have bones that look like white people bones. Like the Ainu of Japan.

Oh, and genetically speaking, Native Americans and Whites are the same wrt to DNA testing type alleles. When looking at the DNA of African-Americans, their allele distribution patterns (when it comes to DNA testing) are more similar to whites than to Africans. And spanish-speaking people, genetically, are all over the map.

I'm a white woman who looks like a minority. Sometimes minorities think I belong to their group. It is kind of funny. We really aren't that different at all.

5:16- I thought the whole point of law school AA was to have someone carry the bottom of the curve who would still get hired in biglaw despite crappy grades

If race is just a "social" construct, please tell me what sort of "social" actions I need to do so that I can be a black guy or a Hispanic guy. Then I can check the right boxes for my kids' college admissions and apply for the United College Negro Fund. After all, race is not biologically fixed, so I just need to change some "social" perceptions and then nobody will be able to notice the difference in skin color, hair, and so on, right?

4:46:

1) "I retracted nothing. "

2) "So the reference to the commenter's "intellect," clearly misplaced, was to point out that it is not due to "merit" that anyone was born with a higher IQ range (a statement I now retract)."

Busted!

Are you racist if you believe that no race is superior or inferior to any other race, but at the same time believe that the races are inherently different ???

"the rise in the number and quality of black athletes has been accompanied by -- surprise, surprise -- stigmatization of the pursuit of professional sports as a 'legitimate' career, instead of something you just do in college before you go on to get a "real" job in law or medicine (although watching it, spending money on it, and betting on it is still totally legit)."

This is the dumbest thing I've read on here in a while.

5:18- you're right when it comes to genetics and intelligence (though I'm still waiting for my NBA AA admit).

The real difference is culture. Some races have cultures that encourage success (see: acceptability of discrimination against Asians), and are therefore resented for it. Others, not so much so.

lol Vinny. I'll acknowledge my earlier comment was not as crystal clear as it could be. But it's hardly the smoking gun contradiction you're playing like it is. Not to mention the quote you use is taken completely out of context. Nice try, though. I'll explain for those who don't want to scroll back up, and who are interested in an actual debate/discussion on the topic rather than a series of pointless "gotchas."

Intellect (meaning, your general IQ range) is an accident of birth, having nothing to do with merit. The hard work you do is how you earn things -- thus, the things you get by virtue of hard work, you have gotten, in part, from merit. Things like whiteness, etc., which I mentioned immediately before the blurb you've removed from my comment -- which I therefore pretty clearly intended to play into the analysis *immediately following* -- are also accidents of birth, and generally afford you advantages that people born differently just plain don't have. Not because they don't deserve them. Not because they didn't earn them. They just don't have them. So when someone with a certain intellect (IQ range) grows up with significantly fewer advantages than someone else with the same intellect, it's logical to reason that this disadvantaged person may "appear" not to perform as well at things weighted toward the advantaged (which, really, is implicit in the definition of "advantaged"). That means that if that someone actually performed at a level pretty near, but maybe a little below, the level of performance of the advantaged person, the disadvantaged person almost certainly worked harder to get there. By any reasonable definition of "merit," the disadvantaged person therefore has more of it.

5:09 -

hmmmm
I see you made the statement that blacks were better off being slaves in the US for several centuries than be in their homelands...the homeland that EUROPEAN POWERS ANALLY RAPED and COLONIZED for centuries...to the point where they may never get their crap together...

It makes me wonder if the reason why china has been able to stay intact, culturally strong and ascend as the new super power is because they were smart enough to keep the white man out at all costs for all these millenia.....

White Locusts of Destruction....

India before they kicked british rule out....Check
Mexico-Aztecs - Check
African nations - Check
Middle East and Palestine/Israel - Check
New World (Native American) - Check
South America - Check

I don't buy that culture argument altogether. I think some of culture is shaped by experience. I.e., I came from a family where my parents were educated, so that was a value that was passed on to me. Many first generation college students, regardless of race, have a really hard time. Many of them face opposition from their families because their families don't get why college is valuable. Also, many of their families would be educated (and thus better off and more likely to send them to school) if discrimation against blacks in education in the 50's and before (and even after) wasn't so horrendous.

5:23, the "retraction" in question was my assumption of the other commenter's intelligence (and, actually, was a leftover from redrafting, which is why it didn't make much sense placed where it was). Boy, ya got me.

5:30 = ignorant bigot of dubious historical education

5:16 - Here's to keeping everyone else stupid, self-destructive, and un-appreciated. They couldn't do it without us ... well, they could (and do), but then they wouldn't have anyone credible to blame it on.

I'm going to have a to take a raincheck on the yacht, though; Father wants to discuss my trust account over brunch at the Ritz.

5:18:

Bad arguments all around by you.

1) Never said there wasn't in-group variation. Of course there are racial differences amongst whites---remember the stereotypes about Jewish and Irish peoples from the early 20th century---but in todays Al Sharpton world, white is white is white and we're all the same and love John Mayer.

Your argument actually boosts my point-- there are so many observable variations amongst racial groups even at the skeletal level that arguing that "race" is illusionary is illogical.

So, thank you.

2) Saying "certain people of "other races" have bones that look like white people bones" is a very vague and weak argument. And certain blacks have bone structures as the some Asiatics. Does that mean a medical doctor couldn't parse their bones from one another? No. They can still be told apart. Race exists in biology.

3) Duh, I don't agree with the modern, stupid, corporate-driven marketing campaign of calling all Spanish-speakers "Latinos." Go tell a Cuban nationalist he looks just like a Mexican and see how happy the reaction is. Or vice-versa. Latino is not racial--many Spanish speakers are descended from white or black or Amerindian peoples, so they would be all over the map. Simply because you speak the same language doesn't mean you're in the same racial category.

4) Oh, and genetically speaking? Genetically speaking, an Eagle and a hummingbird are 99.9% the same. But any idiot knows just because you are extremely similar to another in comparison with 99.9% of all other biological life doesn't mean squat. You can tell a hummingbird and an eagle apart even though they're so similar. Heck, you can tell two species of woodpecker apart even though they seem similar.

Arguing DNA alleles only proves we're of the same species and share many traits---and your implicitly acknowledging the differences.

God, if you're really going to ignore basic science, go back to creationist school and show me the sun going around the earth.

Plus, larger numbers of whites (but not larger percentages) who are below elite colleges minimum standards are admitted than minorities. See http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/28/at_the_elite_colleges___dim_white_kids/

"about 15 percent of freshmen enrolled at America's highly selective colleges are white teens who failed to meet their institutions' minimum admissions standards."

no more bigotted then the rest of the fools here - its a bigot mosh party...we can hate together and each other

"This is the dumbest thing I've read on here in a while."

Oh, you're right. My bad. I must have been ignoring the scores of upper-class white parents pushing their sons to become pro basketball players instead of lawyers and doctors.

You seriously, SERIOUSLY don't see the racism inherent in an audience, mostly white, of people throwing huge sums of money at the spectacle of other people, mostly black, engaging in often dangerous physical stunts for the sheer enjoyment of the (mostly white) crowd? I mean, do I even have to SAY "gladiators" for you to get the point?

So? get rid of those 15%. And the unsuitable minorities. Case closed.

Minorities are angry smelly people with little to offer other than manual labor.

5:30, nice try, but nobody can credibly claim that the 152 LSAT affirmative action admit at Michigan has the "same intellect" as a regular admitted student (average LSAT 169, including the AA admits, which brings down the average). Do you really think that the 17-point difference is simply "a level pretty near, but maybe a little below" the average score.

If you seriously believe that AA should only give a boost to those who are already smart, then you should be opposed to current AA practices. AA has become a de facto quota system where the student body racial makeup is tweaked to coincidentally the same level as the general population racial makeup, regardless of how many blacks are truly smart but unprepared, or just plain not smart. Some schools do give just the minor boost to "same intellect" minorities (e.g., Caltech, military academies), but surprise surprise their minority enrollment is not as high.

5:39:

you're so right. I forgot how death-defying dunking a basketball is. Right on par with having to fight a lion with your bare hands.

A**hat.

good god. if ever i needed a reminder of why i fucking hate this site, this was perfect.

i am sorry i am white. i really am. here, take the keys to my house, my car, and while i am at i am going to make you the beneficiary of my life insurance policy. at this point, am i paid up enough to stop the privileged white man rants against at least me?

ive always believed in judging individuals not groups, but you've convinced me of the error of my ways - individualism is just an insidious plan to keep non-white males down!

5:33- how many educated and successful URMs participate in their respective racial group's "dominant culture"?
slim to none.
Sure their kids might face some pressure "to keep it real [dumb]" from some of their peers, but most URMs flee their communities as soon as they are able to. This is actually one of the few down-sides of integration. Traditionally discriminated against groups no longer have an internal elite to serve as role models, because as soon as a member of that group becomes successful, they join (and are welcomed into) the dominant group's elite.

5:30, Liberia was never colonized by whites / European powers. Please go there for your glorious example of a black self-ruling homeland not tarnished by white colonialism. I'm sure they've built a wonderful society there.

Limousine Liberal thinks that by proving that minorities are stupid and unqualified , they therefore should be put into jobs they haven't earned.

She's a winner, offending everyone involved and arguing nonsense. then again, what do you expect from a whiny feminist studies major?

Oh, Jesus. 5:18 here. Point by point.

1) The differences in bone structure among the racial groups we identify (white, black, native american, asian, etc.) are not as large, on average, as the differences in bone structure among very closely related whites (and Asians, even). So using bone structure differences to say "see, the races are different" doesn't work. Also, differences in bone structure, caused by genetic accident or environment, do not change the fact that selective pressure in favor of intelligence exists everywhere. (In fact, the evolutionary argument I've seen more often is that non-technological peoples have higher average intelligence because if they are dumb, they are more likely to die.)

2) Actually, my point was that docs. can't always tell the major racial groups apart by bone structure. They guess, but in the case of say, the Ainu, they would probably classify them as Caucausoid. And they're not.

3) Right, but a lot of people make generalizations about spanish-speakers or think they are all Mexicans. Racially, spanish-speaking people are pretty diverse.

4) If you are arguing that genetic differences between the races lead to some sort of meaningful difference in intelligence, those differences have to be large. They are not. The main places, like I said above, that we see genetic diversity have to do with bottleneck effects and genetic diseases. No one has identified any genes related to intelligence that one racial group or the other has more of. So any analysis having to do with different types of alleles (alleles governing skin color, bone structure, etc.) are not relevant because we are not seeing the same effects in genetic studies having to do with intelligence.

Probably because, for the nth time, intelligence is selected for in every environment!

I fulfilled most of the pre-med. reqs., specialized in human genetics, did a senior thesis on DNA databases and differences between ethnic groups and subgroups, and was admitted to the biological honors society. I performed genetic research, have played around with genetic alteration to one-celled organisms, and could have easily gotten an offer from any one of the big three major genetic-based biotech. companies after undergrad. (Friends with lesser grades did.) So don't patronize me about creationism.

Also, none of your analysis reveals any understanding that genes don't just exist and are transcribed. Environmental factors have a strong effect on which genes are transcribed, and on development, and the environmental factors that poor whites and minorities face are highly unfavorable. Einstein malnourished at a critical developmental stage (in or out of the uterus) would not have been Einstein.

5:34:

a direct contradiction=pwned.
a direct denial of a previous statement=pwned (impeachment, look it up).
trying to explain it away=priceless.

there are somethings money can't buy. but a limousine liberal will try.

5:43---My point is, there aren't yet enough highly educated minorities to go around. Because of racist exclusion among our parents/grandparents generation.

Get it? If uneducated people are unlikely to send their kids to college (because it does not appear advantageous to them and because they have no money) and more of those uneducated people are black because of discrimination, that discrimination affects their children and grandchildren as well.

So racism doesn't magically disappear overnight.

5:30: "White locusts of destruction," uh? You stay classy, Jeremiah Wright. Black liberation theology at its finest.

If you don't think blacks in America circa 2008 are better off than their African counterparts, then why don't you move back there? This goes for all you "La Raza" Latinos, too. Any takers? Anybody?...

BTW, Africa doesn't need the white locusts of destruction to f*ck themselves up. Men like Mugabe do that just fine, thank you. Oh, yeah, and weren't the Chinese arming him? It's a relief that the white man hasn't infiltrated China yet; otherwise, that country might become a haven for Communist, human-rights oppressors.

BTW,

to 5:40

But no one ever wants to get rid of that 15%. You say it so casually. Any time it gets mentioned in a serious AA discussion, people just blow it off.

If you really care about this, you should go DO something to get rid of that 15%. I have no reason to. Because I don't object to affirmative action.

Where are the 15% of white people who weren't admitted into the school of their choice? Why aren't they getting angry at their dumb, privileged, white brethren who stole their spot? I wonder.

all these posts about the inherent dumbness of minorities whether based on cultural or biological reasons prove the point that that whites are incredibly stupid and racist and self serving and cannot be trusted. I cant wait till you guys are the minority. Not much longer to wait....

5:48- so you're saying my degree in phrenology is worthless?
Crap!

5:55 When whites = minority, America = pwned. May God have mercy on our souls.

As someone who supports AA, I find people like 5:48 embarrassing. If you can't have a discussion about AA without insulting the other person, resorting to sarcasm, or dropping your credentials, don't bother to have the discussion.

You're not going to change anyone's mind with those tactics, and in fact, you'll probably push them farther away from wanting to support AA.

5:51: You're right about racism not going away overnight, but AA has outlived its usefulness. Right now it does more harm than good, as it creates a culture of dependency, even amongst elites. Like any handout or artificial crutch, it breeds slavish behavior. The attitude is "what can the white people give me" not "what can I achieve for myself".

Boy, there are a lot of angry white men here. Why are you all so angry and bitter? You guys sound shrill. Chill out, baby.

Hey, 5:57, it worked so well for Cesare Lombroso!

5:48, whoo-whoo, here comes the clue train, next stop, you:

1. Who said anything about "intelligence" being linked to race? that's what Limousine Liberal is arguing all around here--and then trying to deny. What I'm arguing is that race is not a construct--it exists, dummy. And you admit that racial differences exist, which is what I'm working for--and in bone structure and muscle structure as well. Stupid hippies with ethnic studies degrees are trying to argue that race is a social construct. Race is biology.

2. Saying "docs can't always tell racial groups apart" is a weak defense, buddy boy. So you're implicitly agreeing that docs, objectively, can tell races apart by bone structure many times. And, if you give them the muscular system of a human, their odds shoot up, no? So, my point is validated---race is a biological, not social construct.

3. Agreed. Why are we arguing about this Latino point? Oh wait, because AA aficionados consider "latino/a" to be a race. So in other words, AA aficionados are ill-informed.

4. Nope. I was arguing against the stupid idea that race is a social rather than (or equal to) a biological construct. Arguing you're stupid because you're a minority is, once again, Limousine Liberal's argument.

5. Please, if you're going to equate the modern social welfare state with Einstein existing in the early 20th-century anti-semitic europe of his youth, you've lost. Quite frankly, the only excuses in the last 40 odd years of being a malnourished American is choice, mental disease, kidnapping, or stupidity. You want to argue poor educational opportunities, fine, be my guest. But in a country where soup kitchens line the corners, welfare reform produced fewer people in poverty, and the sign of being low-class is being fat, malnourishment for an American is a piss-poor argument.

5:55, way to make a gross racist generalization about whites ("whites are incredibly stupid"), while complaining about specific individuals who make gross racist generalizations about minorities. Know the meaning of irony?

With affirmative action promoting people like you to represent your race, I'm sure many anti-AA people will be very tickled and MLK will be rolling in his grave.

"So racism doesn't magically disappear overnight."

YOU MEAN THE EQUALITY UNICORN LIED TO ME????

The US should be strong and proud with its own hypocritical regime based on freedom and justice for "ALL"*

* qualified by those who do not attempt to usurp the master's rightful place at the top, whether it be education, wealth, status, desirability and the like. You may enjoy these privileges only as secondary citizens in exchange we will also give you a few extra add ons: a channel or two for your vewing pleasure (we dont want to muck up our pure shows you know), a few publications, and all the prison housing and food stamps and welfare your kind desires*...

* qualified by the fact that we will bitch and moan our burden of sustaining your inferior asses and will blame you for all of our societal ills without looking at the hand we played in creating it....

note how 6:05 "expects" the US to give him the channels and publications and food stamps and welfare. Its someone else's job to give him those things. And implies that we're supposed to give him a position of power/leadership without his earning it.

Nice logic, dummy.

Americans of all stripes are hampered by their semantic approach to race relations.

Calling these concerns "Diversity" issues misses the point completley.

"Equality" programs and discussions would allow everyone to focus on the cure, rather than the symptons.

Recgonizing someone as "diverse" leads to pigeon-holing and quotas. Treating all as equals (formally and substantively) makes diverse characteristics irrelevant.

Aw, forget it, I'm going back to Canada...

omg, 5:51. You are truly hilarious. That's a brilliant dirty litigator tactic. By any chance are you a plaintiff's lawyer? Take a remark clearly geared as a response toward one thing you said, then bring up a completely unrelated remark to show that a statement was not technically (i.e., not literally in every single respect) accurate. If that's all you've got, I so win.

Resorting to non-substantive technicalities to win your argument = epic fail.

Total pwnage. Me for the win.

To 6:02---I will not let bullshit racist biological arguments stand that have no basis in fact.

to 5:18/6:03---My point is these differences are not meaningful. And that they are not absolute. And that other than physical appearance, which often is more varied among groups than between them, "race" has no meaning. We are all the same species. We aren't even genetically different subspecies, like certain sparrows or dogs or pick your favorite animal here. And you really don't understand biology.

There are still a lot of poor children who do not have adequate nutrition, and that does affect their IQs. So does poor schooling.

In other words your "genetic" arguments about distinct races are not genetic and not in anyway meaningful. Hopefully that was clear enough for you.

And wrt to AA groups, they focus on disadvantaged people. Which include spanish-speaking people.

And with regard to Einstein, you really are dim. I am pointing out that good genes only get you so far, and that if Einstein had the poor nutrition that some of our inner city and poor rural children face, he would not have been as smart as he was. Not by a long shot. Get it? Environment effects even those who are genetically very lucky.

"And implies that we're supposed to give him a position of power/leadership without his earning it."

Okay, pop quiz: name ten white men with serious power/leadership who have earned it. Then define "earned."

6:08- don't worry about 6:05, he's still (after 150 years) trapped in the mind of the slave. no personal responsibility, only what the master giveth and taketh

6:10= TTT whiny feminist Limousine Liberal. To the Dave Matthews concert with you!

6:10- I'm glad God appointed you the big sheriff. Just how "big" are you?

6:12- your resentment is cute. now take responsibility for yourself

The elephant in the room is the fact that AA actually hurts minorities (as does any preference, including Legacy preferences). Prof Sanders' (a liberal himself) studies are clear.

This is the problem with many "progressive" policies, while based on good intentions they often cause greater problems (see rent control, AA, tax policy etc).

But go ahead arguing for AA because your intuition tells you it helps.

To 6:10 from 5:51---My point is that uneducated people having uneducated children has nothing to do with the culture of a certain ethnic group.

It is standard accross ethnic groups.

So the culture argument is no good.

And it bolsters the argument about why we still have to remediate racism, because the denial of those educational opportunities still has repurcussions.

Are we now on the same page, or would you rather go back to ad. homs. and pwnage?

6:12, the seven white male justices of the Supreme Court and any three other federal circuit judges. They earned their positions through intellectual achievement, hard work, peer recognition, and a bit of luck.

And don't try the argue that luck means that Breyer didn't earn his position. Luck by definition applies to everyone.

6:20- what about the epic self-PWNAGE of mainstream black culture?

Not being black, I don't have an opinion on "mainstream black culture." What about "mainstream white culture." Because that isn't anti-intellectual. No sirree!

6:20(2)

Most of the commenters = TTTTT whiny racist sexist rusty pickup conservatives. To the White Power convention with you!

"intellectual achievement, hard work, *peer recognition, and a bit of luck*"

Brilliant. You disproved yourself. Excellent.

You can't "earn" luck, and "peer recognition" is way too nebulous to count as something you've definitively "earned" (e.g., what if every single contact who helped them get where they are was a raging sexist and racist?)

Who wants to try next?

hmmm, random 6:12:

1. Steven Spielberg: Making blockbuster movies everyone watches. He calls the shots on his films and does what he wants. influences American pop culture in a way not seen since Frank Capra. Visible celebrity and powerful force in many causes.
2. Bloomberg: Won 2 elections in a major city. High approval ratings, face of NYC, was promoted as 3rd party candidate.
3. Rupert Murdoch= created a vast media empire. One of the world's richest men. Created a 4th Network in America, the biggest 24 cable news network, owns more major newspapers than you have spoons.
4. Warren Buffet==Genius investor, bought his first investment at 14. Global worth before his chartieis began was in excess of 30 billion.
5. Bill Gates=Visionary, created the world's biggest monopoly from scratch. Formerly wold's 2nd richest man.
6. Steve Jobs=adopted poor son, creator of Apple, the world's third most known brand, the market dominating ipod, and hired to run Pixar for Disney. Cult of personality extrodinaire.
7. John McCain=former POW, considered last non-partisan politican in washington for constantly being able to cross party lines and make compromises. Presumptive leader of his party (at moment), power broker for the left/center of his party.
8. John Henry=Owner of the most successful franchise of the last 10 years in baseball. Created a mechanical method of buying into the futures market. Son of a midwestern moderate farmer.
9. Bono==Rock star from protestant christian family in catholic/partisan dublin, often discriminated against because of his religion then. The leader of the most successful musical act of the last 25 years. Used his fame and power to work for third world famine and debt relief. Married to his high school sweetheart.
10. J.D. Salinger=Most powerful American writer still living. Reclusive nature only adds to his impact when he does opine/write. out of nowhere genius, critically acclaimed from the beginning. wrote the catcher in the rye, one of the most praised, banned and controversial novels of the past 50 years. The most influential American novelist since Hemingway. liberated concentration camps in WW2.

suck it, 6:12.

6:20, um, no. Vietnamese and Laotian immigrants tend to be uneducated rural folk, but their children are doing much better than their parents' generation in terms of education, employment and earnings. This is because they don't listen to rap music glorifying quick riches, they don't wait around for the white man to give them handouts, they don't admire prison culture, and they are not ostracised for studying as being "acting white." All this progress since 1975.

Please don't tell me that the contrast with blacks has nothing to do with black culture or is simply due to racism against blacks. Asians are discriminated against, even during Jim Crow days. And how many votes in North Carolina do you think a Vietnamese presidential candidate would win?

Where is that guy who posted upthread about how people tend to relate best to other people like them?

We could use him in the smackdown.

5:51, which 6:10 are you talking to? Are you saying you've now realized that capitalizing on technicalities bordering on typos is pointless and so you'd like to return to having an actual discussion?

6:26 - ha, pointing out that AA actually hurts the groups it's supposed to help is definitely whiny and racist.

To all you AA backers, have you read Prof. Sanders' work? How about the responses to his work? How bout his responses to those responses?

Once again, keep fighting for it... doing so proves your positions are based on emotion (white guilt) not on reality....

AUDACIOUSLY HOPE TO NOT DEAL WITH REALITY, while us "rusty pickup conservatives" will keep trying to help everyone by not trying to help only certain people.

LOL 6:29, you can't earn "peer recognition"? The Nobel Prizes cannot be "earned"? Are you seriously saying that everyone who helped Justices Souter and Breyer get to the Supreme Court has been a "raging sexist and racist" so their peer recognition doesn't count? All the in-favor members of the Senate?

And I already mentioned how luck is a baseline contributing factor that everyone has, in my original statement.

Self-pwnage 101.

6:10, you're not that smart:

"My point is these differences are not meaningful."
---except that they can be parsed objectively by medical evidence.
" And that other than physical appearance, which often is more varied among groups than between them, "race" has no meaning."
---you are a total dumbass. The entire point of my argument, dumbass, is that race is a PHYSICAL manifestation. PHYSICAL. So you agree that race exists, it is the physical differences between people. MY ARGUMENT EXACTLY. Thank you, now kindly stfu.

"We are all the same species. We aren't even genetically different subspecies, like certain sparrows or dogs or pick your favorite animal here. And you really don't understand biology."
--First, jack, I never said other wise. we ARE the same species. So, in other words, numbskull, YOU don't understand the WORDS coming out of my mouth.

"In other words your "genetic" arguments about distinct races are not genetic and not in anyway meaningful. Hopefully that was clear enough for you."
---WRONG. Genetic selection accounts for many physical differences--unless you're arguing that black children raised in white neighborhoods who only marry blacks will start to look white anyway after 2 generations. I am only arguing physically--basic things, like, say, skin color, forehead shape, hair type, joint length v. torso, etc.

"And wrt to AA groups, they focus on disadvantaged people. Which include spanish-speaking people."
---------Yes, because a person speaks Spanish, they're automatically disadvantaged. So I guess 2nd and 3rd generations who speak no Spanish aren't disadvantaged? And the Cubans who run major businesses in Miami--I guess they need AA? Or do you want to retract that argument, cowboy?

"And with regard to Einstein, you really are dim. I am pointing out that good genes only get you so far, and that if Einstein had the poor nutrition that some of our inner city and poor rural children face, he would not have been as smart as he was. Not by a long shot. "
---Right, because in today's day and age, you can't receive good nutrition in the modern welfare state. Do you even bother doing research before you spew your spittle?

"Get it? Environment effects even those who are genetically very lucky."
---No duh, huh? So like, if I'm born in a war zone, I'm more likely to die?

6:10, everything that comes out of your mouth supports my argument. Stop arguing, start thinking, dumbass.

lol@ 6:29. I love how a list of people's achievements is what you count as how they've earned those achievements. Nice.

I'll give you Bill Gates. That is one impressive dude.

Also, Spielberg's a minority.

Vinny, over-exaggerate much? My point was you can't tie those things definitively into desert. Maybe they did earn them, maybe they didn't, but the things you listed didn't prove the point. I certainly didn't say everyone who helped the SCOTUS dudes get where they are was racist and sexist. You'd have to either intentionally misread what I read or simply be incapable of understanding the fundamental difference between "may" and "must." Stop being such a drama queen.

5:51 again, the one who went on about self-pwnage when I pointed out that educated parents, not race, has a lot to do with poor (including minority) people not going to college and not being encouraged to go to college.

And comparing immigrants to people born here is apples to oranges. Esp. since a smaller cross-section suceeds in immigrating, and since many of the immigrants I knew had parents who were either educated, or came from educated families and were denied education b/c of communist purges.

6:39:

Ah, so now Jews are not white. Except when Al Sharpton wants to blame them for conspiring with the police on racial oppression.

Hmm, since the list is made up of people coming from nowhere with no connections to their successful area, I would count that as success. You would just count that as "whitey helping whitey" or whatever logic you use to sleep at night.

This debate is a microcosm of partisan politics: Democrats argue based on emotion because they arrogantly think only their plans, conveniently crafted for them by activist judges, for the little man will "help," when in fact, they usually have the opposite effect; Republicans argue based on reason and logic because, if it's right, they don't give damn what you pansy-faced liberals think.

I present to you AA.

I'm sick of arguing with the stupidity A**hat that is 6:10. i have dinner to eat and playstation to play.

but I'm playing it without a minority around, I must be racist!

5:51, I think you might be confused. My comment (6:10(1)) was directed at the other 5:51.

6:41, I stand by my original list. Rehnquist, Scalia, Breyer, Souter, Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, plus say Douglas, Brennan and Earl Warren.

Did these white male Supreme Court justices earn their positions?

If no, then you have such a contrived definition of "earned" that I recommend you look in the dictionary to see what "earn" actually means ("gain or incur in return for one's behavior or achievements").

6:43, when we have a story to tell our grandkids about our people being subjected to mass slaughter and death camps at the hands of the government for no reason other than our race, then I'll grant that Jews and whites are the same.

I will say this very slowly:

"I am only arguing physically--basic things, like, say, skin color, forehead shape, hair type, joint length v. torso, etc. [are due to race.]"

There are BIGGER differences among what we consider "ethnic subgroups" than there are among what we consider races. My point is that what makes a group of person a "race" or not has almost nothing to do with genetic differences, even those having to do with appearance, because sometimes the appearance variation is MORE SIGNIFICANT between ethnic subgroups that are supposedly the same "race."

The term race has no biological significance. We did not look at the net genetic differences between populations of humans, and derive race. That was what I meant by saying the races are not different species, or even subspecies. We declared race, and in a lot of parts of the world, our classification system makes very little sense. There is a big difference between Afghani whites and Hungarian whites. Hell, there is even a big difference between Magyar (Hungarians) and other eastern euros., who are Slavic. Hungarians are much more closely related to Finns than to Slavs. And what about places where the people aren't exactly white within our meaning of white? Are East Indians white or not? Because the people who established the caste system in India were aryan, for sure, but what are East Indians? They're not black, right? The technical term applied to them is Asian, but they are much more related to my ancestors than my Chinese friends' ancestors. This is why this whole "race is biologically determined" convo. is so stupid. Because it really, really isn't.

And yes, in this day and age, there are a lot of children who do not receive adequate food at a young age in a way that effects their development. In this country! Really! Even with welfare. Do your research.

6:42, that's why I specifically chose immigrants from Vietnam and Laos (not from China, where I presume the immigrants you know are from since they were in educated families but weren't educated due to communism). A wide cross-section of society came over in boats, and very few of the Vietnamese or Laotians had educated parents or came from any educated family background. Get out of your bubble and realize that not all immigrants are educated and privileged, yet they still make a success out of life in far higher rates that those in black culture.

I thought Jews were merely a subgroup of whites. I mean, the Gypsies are considered white,as are the Rusyns and Slavs, but Hitler persecuted them, too. he just thought the races were two kinds: Aryan and non-Aryan.

And Gypsies were thrown into camps and killed, too. So Arguing that one has to consider Jews non-whites is bunk. Judaism is a religion.

6:52, if race is not biologically determined and makes little sense, what can I do to make myself black? After all, "black" is just a social construct and we're all pretty much indistinguishable overall.
And I don't even have to change my appearance because, as you said, race has little to do with appearance.

I want to get some scholarships and admissions preferences, that's all.

So you've alrwady stated, again, that racial categories do exist (e.g. in admitting Hungarians are closer to one race (Finns/Nordic) than another (Slavs)). The point being that subgroups within racial groups do not disprove that racial groups exists biologically. And variation amongst racial groups only shows the genetic diversity within those groups, not their non existence.

We're talking physical, not mental here, get a clue. A coroner, in examining a body, will give an assessment of race if asked (for example, a John Doe), and the assessment is often correct.

You're arguing that racial groups are classified incorrectly, not that they don't exist.

Re: Liberia.

Please see early 20th century African history, Firestone, and America's economic foothold in that country. See also such "westernized" Liberians as Charles Taylor.

Re: Diversity

So, is diversity at law firms important? Sure it is. Everyone can get together and talk all they want about diversity. It doesn't bother me. What does bother me? When a black partner invites me to a dinner and says it will be "you know.. just our people". Being bi-racial, I actually feel some pretty tremendous pressure to take part in this diversity bullshit. Don't get me wrong. I'm glad my firm cares about diversity. But I think there's too much hoopla and bullshit surrounding it. Hire qualified lawyers and try to get a diverse firm. Great. But don't try to make me attend a dinner with "just our people" because that's every bit as offense as -if not more so than - some old white partner cracking a racist joke.

I find my firm to be, for the most part, a true meritocracy. Maybe every firm isn't like this. But as a young associate, I really feel like 1) people here are accepting 2) racism doesn't really exist here in any meaningful form 3) I could give a fuck less whether or not I have "diverse" partners to mentor me 4) I'll make partner or not based on the quality of work I do and the clients I can - someday - pull in.

In my office, there isn't a "dominant white culture". There's just a get shit done, help each other out, and do quality work culture. People do not give a fuck that I listen to Jadakiss on my way to work, or that I sometimes jokingly use slang with other lawyers, or that I really like chicken. Why? Because I don't isolate myself into some racial group, because I'm not angry, because I'm not expecting any handouts, because I bust my ass every day.

Although I'm bi-racial, I observe a strong divide in the "black law firm community" between those people who want it to be about race... those people who always want to make race an issue... and those blacks who aren't bent on making race an issue.. who aren't looking for some racial shit to bitch about...

Then again, maybe my perspective is incredibly singular because I'm bi-racial and did not grow up in a majority black area, and don't have the residual anger that certain blacks have from growing up in inner-cities with crumbling schools, the deep south and overt, institutionalized racism... At either rate, if you've made it through college, to law school, and to a BIGLAW job... whatever racial grievances you had... whatever notions you had about "the man" keeping you down.... maybe it's time for you to check that shit at the door and focus on what matters---- getting your fucking work done, making some money, and living the good life.

And please, 6:52, your "pre-med" qualifications mean 2 things in this argument: jack and squat. and Jack left town.

Immigrants are people who have the motivation to pick up and move to another country to make a better life for themselves, so it is not surprising that they also have the motivation to work hard to make a success out of life.

Have you ever seen pre-med student use Internet. They really excel at it.

I am ashamed to have taught this group of sad souls the word "pawnage" - it is now overused and has lost its mad whip appeal.

With regard to school performance, a lot of it can be attributed to intact families. Of course, spending more time on homework is a factor, but in single-parent households, kids with jobs or other responsibilities, are going to have less time for homework. These asian immigrant households have more intact families than urban blacks. So I think drawing any conclusions without being really careful is a mistake.

Lol, so Liberia's problems are actually because of the white man because the country had Western businesses and Charles Taylor went to college in America? Sure, it's all the white man's fault that one black Liberian group oppressed and disenfranchised another Liberian group, keeping them on plantations and treating them like slaves, until the resentment boiled over into a civil war.

With such a tenuous connection, it's too easy.
I blame the Great Depression on China because Herbert Hoover worked in China. And I blame the current US recession on Japan because Toyota is a big business in the US. It's all the fault of the Asian man.

There are ethnic differences among groups. These do not correllate very strongly to what we call race in this country.

Thus, saying "race" has a biological basis is pretty silly.

And sometimes coroners can tell people apart, sometimes they can't. Usually they are guessing.

Also, why is any of this relevant?

Seriously, why.

heeheeeeheeee

"YOU MEAN THE EQUALITY UNICORN LIED TO ME????"

That was funnyyyy

Again, 7:06, that analysis does not apply to Vietnamese and Laotian immigrants. They moved not because they were entrepreneurial; they moved because they were forced to if they didn't want to die. Without the refugee crisis, most of them would not have been motivated enough to move to the US to make a better life for themselves.

Why do liberals kid themselves that black culture and its disdain for "acting white" is not a source of black academic underachievement.

7:13: Sure, ethnic differences do not correlate "very strongly" to race. So I guess they correlate "strongly" to race?

Got proof, or are you just fantasizing?

And Hungarians are not Finns. They are Magyar. But Magyar are closer to Finns than to Slavs. And "Nordics" are not ethnically homogenous either.

And East Indians, although we call them "Asian" are more closely related to Magyar than to Chinese.

So basically, our current categories of race don't really have any meaning to them.

What makes someone black, as someone pointed out upthread, varies from country to country. We call some people black that brazilians would call white.

When someone tells me I don't know biology, I think my quals. might matter.

"So Arguing that one has to consider Jews non-whites is bunk. Judaism is a religion."

*chortle*

What astounding ignorance.

7:16, just because the racial categories could be better arranged, and differ in other countries, DOES NOT mean that the races are not biologically determined. A child of a white father and a white mother is a white kid. Tell me this again, if the races are not based on biology and are merely a social construct, how do I go about changing my race without changing my appearance?

To 7:16---Um, what I am saying (again) is that there are genetic differences among ethnic groups of the same "race" that are larger than the differences between races. And that some ethnic groups really don't belong in the "races" we have assigned them to.

My Celtic ancestors genetically cross-polinated with my white Magyar ancestors much less recently than my Magyar ancestors cross-polinated with people from Asia. (Avars, Huns, Mongols.) So why are Magyars and Celts in the same "race"?

lol@ 7:10. You taught us a word you can't even spell yourself?

I am the child of two whites, and people, including minorities, think I am the member of a non-white minority group. I have arguments with them about my whiteness. So it really isn't as cut and dried as all that.

7:21--Then what I am saying (again) is that you are merely arguing that racial categories are disorganized, not nonexistent. Don't confuse one with the other.

And 7:20 makes a valid point: if race does not exist, how can I change mine?

While you all fight about this, I'll spend my time learning Spanish. In fifteen years, black people that still think EVERYTHING bad happens because of racism will join white people who are afraid someone with a lower LSAT score will be hired at the same firm, and they will stand together and realize they both got left behind.

They will rant about the legacy of slavery, they will complain about seeing signs in two languages, and they will fight each other over who gets to occupy the bottom quarter of elite law school classes. They will pontificate, they will write on ATL, and they will make racist jokes referring to lawn services.

But when it's all said and done, neither the straight white man nor the gay black woman will know what hit them. They will lose clients because they don't speak Spanish; they will still think Lowe's is better than Home Depot. Yet they will still lose. Because the person that learns the language now will be in the best position in the next 30 years.

white dude

Yes, 7:19, its astoundingly ignorant to think that a group a person can "convert" to simply by believing in the tenants of their faith is a religion.

Astoundingly ignorant.

7:21, it's irrelevant that modern anthropological research have discovered new relationships between racial groups.

Are the racial categories based on biological characteristics of the individual? Yes or no.
If yes, then race is based on biology. QED.

Scottish/Irish/Ukranian here. When I was younger, I was dark enough that most people thought I was Hispanic (I still have enough of a dark complexion that I'm occasionally asked about my race, particularly in the summer). My sister, on the other hand (full sister, same mom and dad), is and has always been white as a lily, and one of the few natural blondes left in the world.

Almost ZERO difference in our DNA. Literally as closely related as two people can be, but with VERY different skin colors.

7:23: just because your parents appeared white doesn't mean your genes are "white" (whatever genes "white" may be). We are arguing racial categories are mixed up, not nonexistent.

And if no, how do I go about getting into a new race?

christ, this entire issue would be moot if people treated others as "people" (or within law firm environment, as lawyers).

7:28, are you actually serious? Are you actually not aware that you can be EITHER ethnically Jewish OR religiously Jewish (or both)? If I convert to Judaism tomorrow do I get to make Jewish jokes? Do I get to tell stories about the Holocaust as though they have an impact on me personally?

People, just because people sometimes mix up your race doesn't mean that race doesn't exist or is not based on your biology. If people sometimes mix up a person's gender, it does not mean that gender is just a "social construct" with no basis in biology.

7:30, there is almost zero difference between your DNA and EVERYONE ELSE'S DNA. Don't make stupid arguments, Limousine Liberal wasted our time on those already.

New relationships between racial groups? Perhaps that's the problem: people apparently have forgotten difference between race (homo sapiens) and ethnicity. Pisses me off to no ends...

What nonsense. White males will never be "candid" about their thoughts on diversity because they're accused of being racist either directly or implicitly if they even imply that they don't like the fact that they've been systematically discriminated against since they applied to college, law school, hiring, and now at their jobs. It's not a big deal. I don't sit at home and cry about it. But it's ridiculous that all dominant social institutions intimidate whites into being completely unable to even voice their own interests in a public sphere.

7:33: Didn't you see the seinfeld?
"He converted to Judaism simply for the jokes!"
"And this offends you as a Jew?"
"It offends me as a comedian!"

"If people sometimes mix up a person's gender, it does not mean that gender is just a "social construct" with no basis in biology."

Actually, it does. SEX has a basis in biology. Gender is cultural.

7:06- Look at immigrants in Western Europe. There they give them welfare, public housing, food stamps, and even more free crap. Look what they do: become an underclass of violent, indolent, criminals who parasite off of the host society.

Immigrants in America thrive because we give them nothing that they haven't earned 10x over (excluding opportunity).

This is the problem with AA and this sense of entitlement that some minority groups have. Whites feel guilty about past racism, so they give them stuff. This in turn keeps the low class and enslaved. A vicious cycle ensues. The only way to break the miserable condition of these people is to free them from the modern bondage of social programs and AA so that they can regain their human dignity and achieve something for themselves.

Wow, 7:34, I wasn't arguing anything. Just making an observation. But, please, feel free to scream like a madman about something I didn't even say.

7:36, I have seen that episode. Was actually thinking about Bryan Cranston when I wrote my comment. Great ep.

7:33: Unless you're more than 60 years old, the Holocaust did not impact you personally. They impacted your family, definitely, and tragically, but you did not personally go through the camps and were not tortured or watched loved ones be punished. That's like a black arguing he "personally" experienced slavery or an Irishman "personally" experienced the potato famine.

7:37, my bad.

People, just because people sometimes mix up your race doesn't mean that race doesn't exist or is not based on your biology. If people sometimes mix up a person's sex, it does not mean that sex is just a "social construct" with no basis in biology.

"Racial" characteristics (i.e. skin color) are based on genes, but those genes are not uniquely confined to one race. Within a racial group, i.e. whites, blacks, there is a wide range of skin colors.

As a child, I was darker than some of my light-skinned black friends, darker than many of my latino friends (including those who were mostly indio), blah, blah. So calling me "white" is really pretty silly. Acting like hungarians and chinese are totally different, but hungarians and celts share some sort of kinship is also silly.

Also, it is ancient history that the Avars, Huns and Mongols overran Hungary. No new knowledge here.

Wrong, 7:35. It's only when you guys get whiny and yelly about it that you're accused of racism. So simmer down and the reasonable people in the room will listen.

7:37: "Actually, it does. SEX has a basis in biology. Gender is cultural."

Warning: Womyns' Studies Major ahead!

7:06- Look at immigrants in Western Europe. There they give them welfare, public housing, food stamps, and even more free crap. Look what they do: become an underclass of violent, indolent, criminals who parasite off of the host society.

Immigrants in America thrive because we give them nothing that they haven't earned 10x over (excluding opportunity).

This is the problem with AA and this sense of entitlement that some minority groups have. Whites feel guilty about past racism, so they give them stuff. This in turn keeps the low class and enslaved. A vicious cycle ensues. The only way to break the miserable condition of these people is to free them from the modern bondage of social programs and AA so that they can regain their human dignity and achieve something for themselves.

No, 7:27, I am saying that races do not exist, but a wide variety of ethnic groups and subgroups, and genetic populations exist. The term "race" is not meaningful, and is meant to invoke species. Which in point of fact, is inaccurate.

I'm not saying that Magyars are Asian or White, I am using them of an example (along with East Indians) of how "Asianness" or "Whiteness" has no significant genetic meaning.

lol, 7:42. I guess all feminists could only possibly have majored in "womyns' studies," huh? We'll just ignore the inconvenient fact of my background in economics. 'Cause feminists can't POSSIBLY know anything about economics.

7:41, all you're saying is that the Magyars have been misclassified, and like other Finno-Ugric groups should perhaps be grouped as Asians. That is completely different from the argument that race is not based on biology. Nevertheless, individual Hungarians are classified as "white" because of their overall biological characteristics that make them Hungarian as opposed to Ethiopian.

Once again, if race is meaningless and not based on biology, and is merely a social construct, what do I have to do to get out of the "white" race and into the "black" race?

Thank you, 7:34. It is nice to know that someone else acknowledges we are all the same species.

7:39: then get over it. Yes, if you convert, you get to use the jokes. the Point of the Seinfeld episode was how arbitrary the line is between making an un-pc joke and identity. If you can become something through a ritual (religious conversion) than the distinction between who gets to say the joke and who doesn't disappears--Jerry is offended because he realizes any pure Jewish-jokes are meaningless then. Jerry's offended because of the cheap tactic employed to prove the cheapness of self-deprecating religious humor.

7:06- Look at immigrants in Western Europe. There they give them welfare, public housing, food stamps, and even more free crap. Look what they do: become an underclass of violent, indolent, criminals who parasite off of the host society.

Immigrants in America thrive because we give them nothing that they haven't earned 10x over (excluding opportunity).

This is the problem with AA and this sense of entitlement that some minority groups have. Whites feel guilty about past racism, so they give them stuff. This in turn keeps the low class and enslaved. A vicious cycle ensues. The only way to break the miserable condition of these people is to free them from the modern bondage of social programs and AA so that they can regain their human dignity and achieve something for themselves.

7:45: so you're not even an expert in the fake field you're drawing from? Thanks! I feel freer to disregard your argument now! :)

No, I am saying that Magyars fit in neither category. Because the categories aren't valid at all. We are all related to eachother in various ways---based on how long it has been since the various populations we have descended from have mixed, and based on which of us tended to mutate in the same direction even though we were distinct populations.

So the Finns are Asians, now?

Well, 7:47, looks like SOMEONE missed the point...

7:51:

if Finns contain the same physicial and genetic characteristics as certain Asians/Magyars, then yes, they should be classified together.

Look, medical science already recognizes that certain racial groups are prone to diseases more than others. See, for example, blacks and sickle-cell anemia. If we can judge that a racial group is more likely to be affected by a disease, why can't you acknowledge the racial group to begin with?

If you want to say that the Magyars are neither "white" nor "black" in race, that's your prerogative and you're free to ask the federal government and schools to create a special "Magyar" category right below the ones for White, African-American, Asian, etc.

But for all Americans and all governmental institutions, Hungarians are white, just like ethnic Nigerians are black. Biology determines when someone is a German/French/Hungarian/Finn/etc. Germans/French/Hungarians/Finns are white. Thus, biology determines that those people are white. And biology determines that a person is a Nigerian, who is a member of the race called black.

If you don't think that the racial classifications are valid, then you don't mind if I check the black race checkbox, right?

this whole race is a construct/ gender is a construct argument is exactly why collegiate degrees are worthless today. If you spend your time arguing about the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin, how can an employer take you seriously?

7:56 here:
I meant that racial groups each have their own disease to whom they are more prone to have than others. I didn't mean to imply that some races get sicker than others. Sorry.

lol, 7:50. You don't have to be an "expert" in medicine to know that a headcold is always caused by a virus while bronchitis can be a bacterial infection, and you don't have to be an "expert" in particle physics to know that an atomic nucleus is made up of protons and neutrons, which in turn are made up of quarks.

To 7:57---"Race" is not underscored by any meaningful genetic differences. People do look differently, based on their genes. Sometimes, we can guess what continent someone came from based on how they look, which is based on their genes.

This whole argument started because one jackass was trying to claim that "racial" biological differences are somehow large and meaningful, when they are not.

But clearly, race is "real" enough that people's perceived race leads to discrimination. My point is that this discrimination is not grounded in meaningful genetic differences, because so-called genetic superiorty has been used to justify mistreatment of many, particularly blacks. That's why I am so emphatic about this.

What I learned from this comment thread is that race is a meaningless social construct that does not depend on my biology or appearance, so I can check whatever race box I want and that would be fine for the limousine liberals. Race is not based on biology.

One way to kill affirmative action is for people who previously have been considered white to begin classifying themselves as those underrepresented minorities.

Populations are more likely to be affected by a certain disease. We see the same bottleneck effects among the Amish, who are German.

Incidentally, sickle-cell has a benefit for people living in Africa, one copy renders you near immune to malaria. Just like the gene that causes cystic fibrosis, which is common among certain nordic white subpopulations, has a benefit because 1 copy = less likelihood of dying of cholera.

So diseases can be selected for among populations, they aren't "racial." Other times, its just a bottleneck, like the Amish.

Just because race isn't based on how biologically different from eachother doesn't mean that the construct isn't very powerful.

Classism isn't based on biology, and it is very powerful. Just ask those brits. who can estimate class based on accent.

Um, 8:09, wait, so race is underscored by some genetic differences (but as long as they're not "meaningful"?) In other words, small but definite genetic differences delineate the races? You've changed your whole tune.

Skin color is genetic. And people who we call "black" tend to have darker skin than those we call "whites."

But these differences do not "delineate the races" because there are ethnic groups living in Africa who are not dark. There are ethnic groups that live in Europe that are darker. (Compare, e.g., Egypt or Morocco to Hungary). There are ethnic groups with dark skin that did not develop it based on shared ancestory with Africans.

The differences aren't meaningful, because there are some genetic differences, even those having to do with bone structure, which is a lot more complex and fundamental than skin color, which are MORE DIFFERENT AMONG "WHITES" AND "BLACKS" than they are between whites and blacks.

Why don't you just go read what Lewontin and Hartl had to say about race, genetics, and ethnicity, and spare me the trouble.

Whoa. Lots of hate today.

Anybody want to host a white male diversity panel in DC?

8:25, people from Morocco or Egypt are not considered racially "black." Former UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, an Egyptian, is not black. Muammar Qaddafi is not black. Black is generally Subsaharan Africa.

And south Indians, Samoans, and Australian aborigines, who have dark skin, are also not "black." Merely having dark skin is not a sufficient condition to be black.

If you're going to pretend to know anything about race, try to get your facts straight before you get called on your ignorance. Why don't you read about the reality of races today and spare me the trouble.

And does the check-box on forms say "black" or "African-Americn."

Sometimes other people who are dark are mistaken for blacks.

That is why "race is genetic" is such a dumb argument. No, race is based on our perceptions of someone's continent of origin based on skin-color mostly. Genetically, it isn't very significant.

The bone structure point was what I was pointing to when saying there are more differences among blacks and whites than between them. And that is true even if you only look at light europeans and dark africans.

What I learned today.

All whites are directy related to rich slave owners who have mansions. They are all incredibly privileged, rich and stupid but got into Ivy colleges and law schools as legacies and/or there father was on the University Board of Admissions and has a Hall named after him at St. Cakes Law School.

9:05, don't forget that terms like "white" and "black" are social constructs not based on biology or appearance, so anybody could be a member of any racial category. How this reconciles with affirmative action racial preference for "blacks" and not "whites," I'm not sure.

Social constructs are quite clearly based on appearance. But that doesn't mean that the genetic differences underlying appearance are either significant or indicative of other types of genetic differences.

Funny, what I learned in this thread is that people say all kinds of stuff about black people and don't want to be called on it; that privileged whites get advantages over less privileged whites and minorities, regardless of intellectual ability; and that malnutrition and socioeconomic factors, such as a parent's college degree, have a HUGE effect on a child's intellectual development and academic performance.

I've said it once and I'll say it again:

Sutherland, Paul Harris, White Diversity Conferences.

Herpes.

Spot the odd one out:

1) Herpes
2) Paul Hastings
3) AA
4) Retarded CWT Partner

Judging by the whiny "why does everyone hate white people" non sequiturs people are still flinging around after the non-haters have explained about 57 different ways why white people, though not evil (most of them, anyway), are nonetheless given a fairer shake than others, I'd say "herpes" is the most useful thing that's come out of this clusterfuck.

Well done, all.

ALL THIS TALK ABOUT RACE ON THIS THREAD IS RETARDED. LET KEEP IT SIMPLE, "WHITE GUYS" ARE COMPLAINING FOR NO REASON. ALL BIG LAW FIRMS ALREADY HAVE A "DIVERSITY INITIATIVE" FOR WHITE GUYS.....ITS CALLED PARTNERSHIP.

Great, another racial comments clusterfuck. While I'd like to think that the whole world of big law is a giant meritocracy, it isn't. Sometimes people get ahead because of relationships. Sometimes relationships, like mentoring relationships, come about in part because of the participants' shared race or ethnicity.
No one likes to be told that their achievements are largely due to the help of others and take offense. People especially hate to be told that their achievements are due solely to their race. So most of us tend to talk past each other on diversity in big law firms. For the record I'm black and I fall prey to stereotyping older white guys as unlikely to be good mentor material as some of them may stereotype me as an Affirmative Action baby. We're both engaging in a bit of racism. Sucks. Race in America has always been a somewhat intractable issue. We say race shouldn't matter, but these comments make it clear that race matters a hell of a lot. Hopefully the next generation will do a better job than prior generations. If anything I don't think law firm partners dislike blacks. They just generally don't care about associate development. Since there are so few blacks in the profession or in the law school pipeline there will be less of us at the top of the law firm structure. Unfortunately, people will draw from that whatever fits into their world view. For some, that view is that blacks can't hack it intellectually-racist. We all see the world in ways that best fit our expectations. Works both ways. If I expect racism, I look for it, perhaps too much. Finally, the world is more than black and white, and the fact that it always comes down to two races in this discussion speaks volumes on how polarized race is in this country. It's as though other races and ethnicities don't exist or can't add their two cents.
I'd love an honest discussion about race, but we all get pretty pissed at each other when someone challenges something near and dear such as who we are and who we are is usually prefaced by a racial classification.

There's strength in diversity and given that the clients are becoming more diverse, diversity is a must at reputable law firms with a global clientele. Aside from this obvious reason, diversity initiatives are important because 1) of the legacy of racism in this country which has kept minorities from competing with white people on a level playing field and 2) there’s a whole lotta brilliance beyond the white man’s brain! I’m a minority woman and, on many occasions, I have been told by WHITE MALE PARTNERS that I'm at the top of my class in terms of smarts, work- product, etiquette etc. I know I am; white boys, at my firm, call me with work related questions all the time. Let me be clear, diversity initiatives don't hire stupid people. Only if white people had a fucking clue about the kind of a rock star one needs to be to win diversity scholarships. These initiatives, whether you like or not white boys, are here to stay. They'll be around and you can continue with your jealousy and hate and let your insecurities get the best of you. Long Live Minority Empowerment!

Upshot: Dear white boys, you’ve got serious competition and it’s not going anywhere! Brace yourselves.

Real rock stars don't need a diversity crutch.

It isn't a crutch to make sure you aren't excluding people because they look different then you = you're less likley to relate to them = you're less likely to hire them or give them credit due unless you are very conscious of your actions.

"You seriously, SERIOUSLY don't see the racism inherent in an audience, mostly white, of people throwing huge sums of money at the spectacle of other people, mostly black, engaging in often dangerous physical stunts for the sheer enjoyment of the (mostly white) crowd? I mean, do I even have to SAY "gladiators" for you to get the point?"

Gladiators fought to the death, you idiot. No, I don't see some extremely talented black athlete getting paid a large sum of money for being so talented as "inherently racist" and I don't see white spectators (are there no black/latino/asian/etc. NBA fans out there?) as "inherently racist." There is an enormous difference between spectacle and sport. Frankly, I think deeming professional basketball a "spectacle" minimizes the legitimately enormous talent these players have.

"There's strength in diversity."

really? In fact there is plenty of research to suggest just the opposite. That working groups are far more efficient when they contain people who are substantially similar in race and class.

10.06am

I don't believe gladiators were paid $100 million to perform.....

I don't believe that NBA players run the risk of being killed or seriously injured......

Your analogy is thus slightly flawed

What I really love is how I know several women in my non-top school law class who got big law jobs but have made it known they plan to work for only a year and then get pregnant, quit, and never return.

Employers should be able to ask about this, screen them out, and then hire those of us who don't plan to get knocked up and quit (aka men and professional women).

10:23: The analogy wasn't mine. I agree with you.

2:06:

Can you imagine if we"white boys" starting calling you a "nice negro girl"? Or called your black male friends "boys"?

Sometimes the inherent racism of those in favor of AA is so apparent, it almost takes a double take to see it.

9:58:
You assume this is all true. In other words, you convict a person of racial motives without trial. Your proof? Someone who looked like him did the same thing once.

That's called racism.....
But of course, you knew that.

It looks like this event IS open to all. Lat just added a correction:

"The White Men & Diversity event about which you inquired is a Chicago Committee on Minorities in Large Law Firms event that is being hosted by Katten. The event is open to the public, and there is no charge for the event. Please let me know if you have further questions about this event. Thank you."

and just to piss off the ethnic studies people here...

race isn't a construct, it's genetic. biological. yes, the categories may be messed up (some blacks should be classified as whites, and vice versa), but you, yes, objectively speaking, a medical doctor can give the racial category of a person from an autopsy.

You may not like that racial categories have been used to pigeon hole people's abilities in the past and in the present. But just because you don't like that doesn't mean you can go and obliterate the racial categories themselves.

Morons.

2:06: Do you really think all "white boys" had the same start in life? Give me a break. Yes, they all have the privilege of white skin (whether you're W or some illegal immigrant from a former Eastern Bloc country), but the practice of lumping all "white boys" in together is as idiotic as, well, lumping all minority lawyers together.

Katten has a history of "diversity" issues. Just read the book "The Good Negro..."

"You seriously, SERIOUSLY don't see the racism inherent in an audience, mostly white, of people throwing huge sums of money at the spectacle of other people, mostly black, engaging in often dangerous physical stunts for the sheer enjoyment of the (mostly white) crowd? I mean, do I even have to SAY "gladiators" for you to get the point?"

This writer does understand that blacks were once banned from white leagues so that the "gladiators" could be completely non-black (note: Native Americans were allowed to play during Jim Crow Baseball, so non-black is appropriate)? And the writer does realize that there are (gasp) still some white players in professional sports, right? And the writer must further realize that, no, middle and upper class parents never encouraged sports a career path---that the majority of players have come and will always come from poorer backgrounds?

But perhaps I am expecting too much out of an AA meathead.

10:45, read Lewontin and Hartl. Racial categories are not genetically valid. We are all the same race---the human race. We are not subspecies. Our ancestors came from a wide variety of populations with differing levels of genetic variations. Skin color is caused by genetics. But "whites" "blacks" and "asians" have a wide variety of variation in that category. Some white ethnic subgroups are much more different from eachother than "whites" are from "blacks."

And no, those performing autopsies cannot distinguish based on race. They guess. If the person has features and bone structure that is more commonly found among their "race" they are more likely to guess right. Even with the type of DNA testing we use in court, we cannot tell if people are white, black, or Asian. We can just say that they are more likely to be white, black, or Asian, if they have alleles that are more common among whites, blacks, and asians. For example, lets call two alleles H1 and H2. The breakdown might be something like whites-20:80, blacks 30:70, and Asians 10:90. There is not one allele used in DNA testing that is found in one "race" and not another. Although genetic diseases are more common in some populations than others, there is not one genetic disease that is "only" found in people from Africa or Europe or Asia.

In fact, when it comes to analyzing the DNA of African Americans, databases from Africa are not valid at predicting the number of African Americans with an allele, becuase most African Americans have a significant amount of "white" or Native American DNA. That's right, I said "white" or Native American DNA. Somehow, the allele frequencies for whites and Native Americans are very similar even though those two populations hadn't crossed paths for a long time. Interesting.

11:08:

1. "And no, those performing autopsies cannot distinguish based on race. They guess."
----just like they "guess" at the cause of death. An extremely educated guess based on objective facts. Sure, they're going to get it wrong---just like if they suspect a guy suffered from heart disease but really didn't. But they're basing their hypotheses on facts, and their hypotheses are more often than not right. You can't say that doctors merely guess at race when they have specific checklists of racial features they can use to determine a person's race. You're double talking, ethnic studies major.

2. "Racial categories are not genetically valid"----except, of course, when you want AA to apply. And in bone structure, skin color, etc. You're merely arguing (again) that current racial categories are erroneous, and should be modified.

3. "Even with the type of DNA testing we use in court, we cannot tell if people are white, black, or Asian.-- a key admission. You claim that current DNA testing cannot tell what a person's race is, but looking at them can. So all we need is more advanced DNA testing to prove what our eyes can already tell us.

10:40--I don't assume it is true, research has shown that people are more likely to discount the abilities of "outgroup" members. That doesn't mean that there aren't individual people who are completely focused on merit. But the vast majority of test subjects react less favorably when (1) they are interviewing someone of a different ethnicity, (2) they are reading a paper or resume that has a "black-sounding" vs. a "white-sounding" name, (3) they are reading a scientific paper authored by a woman vs. a man.

The interviewing study showed that most of the white participants sat farther from the black participants, asked fewer questions, ended the interview sooner, were less friendly, etc. The resume study showed that when "ethnic" names (i.e. Kenya) were used, the person who submitted the resume was much less likely to get a callback. The scientific study just swapped names on papers and had them peer-reviewed---those that were reviewed with a male name got higher scores than those that had a female name attached.

I don't think I go around thinking negative thoughts about minorities, but since I mostly grew up with white and asian people, I think I have a level of comfort with them that I don't with people outside of those two groups. So that just means that I work extra hard to try and get along and work well with people who are different from those I grew up with.

I think it is really important for all of us to try that.

And you know what, I do it in my interactions with men, too. If I catch myself stereotyping men (as less mature, or not interested/knowledgeable about certain subjects) or if I catch myself not making the effort to relate to men whose upbringing or early experiences were very different than mine, I catch myself and do my best to listen and learn so that we can work together better.

One of the weirdest "privilege" experiences I had was that even though we didn't have money, and I wore hand-me-downs growing up, when I went to college, people thought I was rich. Because I spoke unaccented California english. I am not kidding. Instead of getting all pissy that other white people (as it happened) assumed I was privileged when I really wasn't, I just did my best to gently correct their misunderstanding, and was very careful not to act snotty because people at my college somehow thought I had that right. It was really weird.

8:02:
So you admit womyn's studies is a fake subject. I win. lol!

THE CHICAGO COMMITTEE ON MINORITIES IN LARGE LAW FIRMS IS AN ORGANIZATION IN CHICAGO SPONSORED BY ALL OF THE LARGE LAW FIRMS IN CHICAGO. THE COMMITTEE HAS ITS OWN STAFF AND ITS BOARD IS COMPRISED OF ATTORNEYS FROM CHICAGO LARGE LAW FIRMS. HOWEVER, TO SAVE ON OVERHEAD COSTS, THE COMMITTEE'S OFFICE ROTATES EVERY TWO YEARS FROM ONE HOST FIRM TO ANOTHER. KATTEN IS THE HOST FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS. THE COMMITTEE'S PROGRAMS ARE DESIGNED, ORGANIZED, AND IMPLEMENTED BY THE COMMITTEE. THE HOST FIRM GENERALLY CO-SPONSORS EVENTS, ESSENTIALLY JUST PROVIDING THE VENUE SPACE. YOUR STORY BLASTS KATTEN, WHEN IN FACT THIS EVENT IS AN EVENT OF THE CHICAGO COMMITTEE ON MINORITIES IN LARGE LAW FIRMS AND ALL CHICAGO LAW FIRMS. PLEASE YOUR REVISE YOUR STORY TO REFLECT THE ACCURATE FACTS RATHER THAN SENSATIONALIZING AND BASHING KATTEN.

11:16 took the night off and is back for more.

1. It really isn't that great of a guess. And it really doesn't matter. People have all kinds of different bone structures and skin colors.

What I keep saying, and what you keep missing, is that the genetic differences between what we call the major "races" are not the largest genetic differences to be found amongst populations. It just happens that skin color is very visible. There are lots of people with skin just as dark as people born in Africa (even sub-saharan) that developed their skin color completely differently.

2. Racial categories are socially constructed. The use of the term race is misleading in a genetic sense because it suggests speciation.

Studying human populations is interesting, but even the most isolated human populations (unlike, say, animal populations) have the same genes.

BTW, have you heard about the lost tribe of Israel discovered in Africa? Y-chromosome analysis proves the relatedness.

3. We have mapped the human genome. We have all the data. You are relying on a very small number of genes that determine appearance. All popultions have these genes, they just have them in different frequencies and different combinations. We could look at genes and determine whether someone has x color eyes, or x bone structure (although these traits are multigenic and not 100% penetrant and blah blah.)

If you really want to know how related two populations are, you look at the Y chromosome to trace the paternal line, and the mtDNA to trace the maternal line. That tells you a lot more about relatedness of populations. Differences in skin color (or even eye color or facial features or height) DO NOT predict how recently a population diverged from another.

That is why race is meaningless.

Given the number of posts on this topic, you would think that there is an empidemic of minorities taking over America's law schools and law firms. I doubt there is one poster who went to a law school that had a student body class that was even 8% percent black, or worked at a law firm that was more than 2% percent black.

My question is, if you believe that blacks are overrepresented in law schools and in Big Firms, then how many of them should be there? One? My guess is, even if there was only one black person in your entire law school or law firm, you would still think they got in based on Affirmative Action. So there really is no solution that would satisfy you, because you have already decided how you feel about blacks.

11:38, painting all people that are against affirmative action as closet racists is a really old and tired strategy.

Some of us really do believe that all discrimination on the basis of race and gender is bad and that all people should be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.

If there was no AA at the school, then I could be absolutely sure that every minority candidate got there on their own merits. As long as AA exists, there will always be doubt (even libs will doubt, they'll just pretend otherwise) until the individual in question demonstrates by his or her performance that he or she has earned the right to be there, regardless of AA. Which is pretty messed up, since if one has a job or a place in an elite school, there should be a presumption that they earned that position - but AA removes that presumption for certain people. The problem with making AA policy is that you are reducing people to colors, group and statistics - which completely ignores the reality of poor white people and priveleged minorities - as individuals.

>

@2:54pm 5/7/08:

Because the law firms, predominantly run by those white men, have demonstrated time and time again that they are incapable of hiring people on merit without regard to skin color. If those white men were capable of hiring based on merit, a majority of law firm partners and associates wouldn't be white men.

It really is that simple...

1:04
I'm black and think AA will end. AA doesn't change attitudes about race. AA won't get whites to see non-whites the same way they see whites. But to be fair, blacks engage in our fair share of profiling as well. In my experience blacks perceive whites as generally being a little racist, which irony of ironies, is pretty racist of us. (Obviously I'm not the spokesperson for any race or group. I'm just sharing my observations).
In mostly white law firms a white associate and black associate both make a mistake; some number of whites will extrapolate from the black associate's error that blacks generally aren't qualified to work at big firms. It's counterintuitive for a white person assessing the white associate's mistake to conclude from that mistake that his own group is generally not qualified to work at big law firms. Basically we all see what we want to see and tend to downplay what doesn't fit into our world view. If I think everyone who is against affirmative action is a closet racist, then I won't be open to some of the logical arguments against affirmative action. If you think that all the blacks at your job couldn't get anywhere but for affirmative action, then it's going to be almost impossible for them to convince you otherwise. The reason so many people are still in favor of affirmative action is because they suspect that blacks will be "underrepresented" at certain schools and professions. It's tough to even say what underrepresented means. How many Native American partners have you met? Are they underrepresented? Are whites underrepresented in the NBA? These are complex issues, and AA has proven ineffective at solving them.
I wish race/ethnicity didn't matter, but it does, and it's intellectually dishonest to claim it does not matter - not to say that you did so in your post.

11:38, First, my comments did not say that all people who are against AA are racist, those were your words. My question simply asked you to ponder what it would take for those oppossed to AA to not view all blacks as beneficiaries of AA. If anything, my post spoke more to prejudce (i.e., pre-judging) than racism. Poster 1:04 attempted to answer that question (I'll address his/her comments later). Second, classifying an argument as "old" does not diminish the soundness of the argument. This is especially true when you yourself use an "old" strategy to argue against said argument (i.e., co-opting MLK's words to support a position most would assume he would be opposed to).

1:04 - I can't tell you how you would view others if there was no AA, but I can tell you that many people who go to school where there is no AA (i.e, Michigan, California, and Texas), still view minorities at their school as AA admits. They believe that there is a conspiracy to get in as many minorities as possible, even if that means breaking the law. Go to the campus of any public school in the states I mentioned and you'll find that this is a common belief. The mindset of these anti-AA individuals is that there simply can't be this (insert whatever number of blacks are in your class) many qualified minorities available (keep in mind people are thinking this without having viewed ANYONE'S application). That's why I sincerely ask the question, so how many should there be? I have come to believe that for some anti-AA proponents the answer is zero because they have chosen to hold on to the same prejudices that you own up to in your post, even in places were AA no longer exist.

I find it curious, however, that you seem to blame AA for the fact that you choose to prejudge people based on their race. I'm not here to tell you what to do, but at least own up to the fact that just as easily as you can choose to assume someone is unqualified, you can assume they are qualified, until proven otherwise. There is no policy that can make you think anything, thankfully.

In regards to poor white people, if poor white people want their condition to be considered in admissions/hiring, then I suggest they lobby their representatives to pass legislation that will address their concerns. AA was not created for them, so they can't stake a calim in it. Contrary to the arguments in Grutter, AA is not about creating diversity, it's about rectifiying the harms of slavery.

When a poor white person competes with a rich minority person in a law firm, guess which one has the advantage? The poor white person gets the favored status all of the time.

1:39--right, so your saying that AA programs that give "bonus points" based on race to not smart enough to get in are wrong, because obviously the minority hires are purely meritorious.

Make up your mind, 1:39, on your liberal conspiracy theory: Either minorities aren't good enough to get in on their own or they are and therefore any firm who doesn't hire enough to fill your quota should be taken to court.

In your scenario, it should be easy to prove if a firm is not hiring based on race. So AA would be unnecessary because those "few" companies that aren't racists should have the opportunity to acquit themselves.

And I stand by the statement that AA violates due process by finding guilt before innocence.

but then again, your double talk racial assumptions betray your illogic on the subject.

Q.E.D., bizznich.

1:39:
Assuming a group of people with similar sex and race will always act a certain way because of other similar groups acting that way in the past.....is sexist and racist.

But you knew that, of course. ;)

it's Bash Whitey Day!

1:59

1. Got proof?

2. Are you claiming that both people are equally qualified? Wasn't some lib complaining that rich people are incompetent--oh wait, only the white rich males.

3. Simply because it happened somewhere else by someone with superficial characteristics does not mean it colors every perception. You must prove the specific circumstance is promoted by race, not just say "they all do it." Otherwise, you give free reign to say that all black males will commit a crime, given the criminal statistics of black males, and therefore we can just lock them up ahead of time.

Oh wait, that would violate due process, too....

1:39="Because the law firms, predominantly run by those white men, have demonstrated time and time again that they are incapable of hiring people on merit without regard to skin color."

Wow, a blanket statement about a race and about hiring without any proof presented whatsoever. And the assumption that it will always continue no matter what, unless someone puts a gun to their head and forces them to fill quotas.

Nice job, moron!

2:06 Read 1:56. He made the correct point about the "counterintuitiveness" which results in minorities not getting second chances when they make mistakes (and in this profession, making mistakes is part of the learning process).

@ 2:01--You make absolutely no sense whatsoever. LOL...

@ 2:08--Exactly!!! You get it, moron!!!

2:15:

once again, the onus is on YOU to prove that this occurs in a specific instance. Citing some vague study about how it might be true is the same as someone citing some study about black males being criminals.

You can generalize all you want with vague studies designed to "prove" inherent racism.

Once again, see the Due Process Clause.

2:34: Did you even read 2:01? He called you out on your stupidity. But then again, being a lib, you prolly have a lower IQ and can't understand formal logic....

2:15:

i love how the "correct point" is the one that supports your theory. Typical AA argument---make the theory, then declare which facts are correct.

Um, some of us let the facts create the theory.

AA=quota system to have pretty brochures.

Studying with stupid people does not make you smarter.

We're all talking past one another. Race, politics, religion. It makes us all angry and touchy. I suspect most of us can objectively argue either side of a case, or see ourselves on opposite sides of a given transaction. When it comes to AA, or similarly race conscious issues, we divide ourselves into groups and get very defensive.
AA won't last forever. It is the 21st century after all. No one owes me a living because I'm black, especially an incredibly lavish one such as what's found in Big law. That said, if you think law firm advancement has nothing to do with race/ethnicity, who you know then that's a bit naive.
Good luck to all the associates on this board. It's a tough economy and I hope that all the resentment building up about "diversity," for which race is a very poor proxy, tones down as the years go by. As associates we probably have a lot more in common than not. It's not like too many of us can really pretend we had an incredibly tough life and are being oppressed by our bosses exclusively because of our race. They generally just aren't that interested in any one of us. Nothing personal. It's just the business.

"Contrary to the arguments in Grutter, AA is not about creating diversity, it's about rectifiying the harms of slavery.."

And you reached this conclusion by.....? AA does not benefit African-Americans only.

"8:02:
So you admit womyn's studies is a fake subject. I win. lol!"

Oh, you got me. I made the mistake of comparing women's studies to the equally-fake disciplines of medicine and particle physics. Genius.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA: This is all funny. For the record I'm a black male who grew up pretty well.

Whites: Quit complaining. I know its sucks to get stereotyped as privileged, rich, whatever. I think it's stupid. Most my white friends growing up worked so fucking hard to get where they are. I will acknowledge this. However, recognize that your race does give you advantages ranging from being able to form better relationships with those at the top (partners in this case) to having people in the public not think you are about to rob them. On the other hand, one must admit, today, white males are the most explicitly discriminated race in America (I am going to ignore Jews and Asians because I don't know the data).

Blacks/Latinos/Whoever feels like they are discriminated against: Stop acting like its sooo fucking bad. For middle class blacks (especially you Africans or direct descendants of immigrant Africans): I know, I grew with people telling me I was white cause I wanted to do well and not play basketball for th rest of my life. I know, it sucks to have people assume you are going to or have committed a crime and it sucks to be stereotyped. But stop acting like you busted your ass for the LSAT like your white counter part. I didn't. I know if I can get in with a lower score then wtf? Any rational actor will work less if they know the results will be the same. But don't complain when people bash us for it. All we can do is smile and say: I'm sorry, but life is not fair for you or me, but I'll take what I can get.

In the end of the day AA is bullshit. It is a bandaid applied to a deep laceration. The only reason URMs get into school, jobs, etc with lower standards is because we are attempting to right the wrongs of the past (philosophically, this may be impossible, but I guess we should try) but maybe we should be doing this via different social policies. AA should have a middle ground and not be based purely on race (economics should play a role).

Finally, black culture sucks. If you are "African-American" or your ancestors were slaves, your mentality and culture is so fucked up that you don't get the value of education or what it takes to do well. But those sorry values are re-enforced by white people who may not rap the songs, but distribute the CDs and market the bullshit music. But ultimately, it's black culture that must change. To me, changing a culture that has developed over hundreds of years (yes, at the hands of white people, but you can't really get on the white people today for what happened. They may benefit when Uncle John enslaved Uncle Tyrone, but what can you do? Life isn't fair!!!! We can't really spend too much time blaming current whites because we are really blaming some of their ancestors. What happened in the past is done, let's MOVE FORWARD) is nearly impossible, but what else can we do.

Clarence Thomas may write some really sorry opinions. I wonder if he understands how to write a sentence that flows freely. However, the man has a point. He says AA is bad. And it is. It may have a legitimate end, but the means are not legitimate. We need a new means to reach a legitimate end.

I know there are some white people out there who feel superior and don't think blacks are entitled to shit, but I don't blame them. It's a cold fucking world. No one is going to hand you shit, you have to take it. Fuck AA, it's time to take what is ours not have it handed it to us.

I studied for those LSATs like a bitch knowing I could go anywhere with my other numbers and resume. I'm a bitch and admit this, but guess what? I don't give a fuck. I played the system and don't feel sorry for doing this. That's why white people rock everyone else, they just play the game and say "fuck you, I'm taking what I want." All I ask is that everyone else starts to think the same way. I will play the system until I die, but I'll always feel a little inadequate because I put in less and get more. On the other hand, may be I'm just being smart and getting the most out of life while putting in as little as possible: this is another form of "merit" for all you whites who want to complain.

3:36 - do some serious research into the history of AA (the posts on this site don't count), the fact that it now includes more than blacks does not change what its original purpose was.

4:42 - what god-like reasoning.

In summary, whites stop complaining your ancestors made things pretty good for you.

Blacks need to realize AA is fucked up and WORK HARDER.

4:42. nice try, but you're not black, I call flame.

p.s. First sign that this was fake, you start off saying you didn't study hard for the LSAT, just to conclude by saying that you studied "like a bitch." Be more careful next time you try to add controversy to a serious debate.

4:42, another sign you're not black, you're idea of black culture is limited to rap music, wow.

Oh, and "blacks don't value education" . .. hmm, I wonder what all that Brown v. Board mess was all about then.

And I'm pretty sure the "slaves" you referenced risked their lives to learn how to read . . but no, they didn't value education, they actually preferred picking cotton.

5:13. I'm actually really happy to see that you don't think I am black. It shows that people don't realize that there are minorities that do not fully support AA. I'm black. When I said I studied like a bitch I mean I studied, but not all out.

haha...5:34: Yes, I AM BLACK. And blacks don't value education like Asians or Jews (Africans do, but not black americans). I remember working a blue collar job in MD. The Alack Americans always asked me if I played football at school (because of my build). The Africans would ask what I studied. If you want to argue that black Americans value education, then good for you, but I won't even venture into that absurd discourse. A few slaves and yeah a Brown was about education, but the majority of Black Americans do not value education.

You and the previous post are so fucking absurd. Okay, even if I am not black (which I am) then attack what I said not who I am.

Oh and on the reference to rap music. A majority of blacks (including myself, but despise most of it) listen to it. Are you people black? This just shows the current disillusion of our own people! Good luck us!

If you don't think I'm black, ask me anything that only a black person would know from their experience. Give me a situation, whatever.

5:13 and 5:34. You two remind me of Rev. Wright (if you are black)

I'm a closet communist, so I'm obviously very pro-AA. However, I have two complaints.

(1) AA assumes that because (a) some white people are rich, privileged, and have established a system that benefits them then (b) all white people benefit from that system and/or are rich/privileged. This does not necessarily follow (for you LSAT junkies out there). In reality, the stereotypical privileged white "bogeyman" we are all hoping to destroy is a rare bird. The vast majority (i.e. 99%) of whites are poor and undereducated. As such, disadvantaging these fellow "discriminees"undermines the goal (assuming that goal is an equal playing field). So, I gues, in sum, my argument is that AA is under inclusive. If we're going to establish some closet capital redistribution system, we should include poor whites (now, sans AA protection, arguably the most disadvantaged group in America).

(2) Being a poor white ("white trash") from undereducated, rural-living parents (whose parents parents parents parents were brought shackled into Charleston on a debtor ship--true story), I have to say that I harbor some ill will toward vaguely defined diversity initiatives ( see grutter/gratz). People generally mean one of two things when they mention "diversity"--either diversity of experience or diversity of genetics (i.e. race). And when they say "diversity will make for a more well rounded education," I have to assume they are appealing to the benefits of experiential diversity and not "color diversity" (otherwise they could just change the wallpaper in the law library and achieve the same effect) The problem is that, in practice, the two are are conflated (i.e. black/red/yellow/white= benefit of experiential diversity). An interesting question arises if we assume the people conflating the two are intelligent folks who realize this distinction; namely, if this really just "race preferences cloaked in some vague substantive decisional criteria." I won't speculate.

However, while I'm certainly not whining, myself and many like me ("ppor whites") have objectively been "disadvantaged" as a result of both undergrad and grad school policies. These experiences cause some ill will and skepticism about "diversity initiatives." For example, both my brother and I had gpa/lsat combo's over Harvard's 75%. We were both summarily rejected not only from Harvard (understandable) but also from a hodge-podge of schools in the "T-14." And, while we both managed to end up in "top 6" schools, neither of us received merit aid (although we, by my estimates, had to be in the top 5% of the incoming class "numbers wise"). So, the end result is that we will have 160k in debt from an arguably lower ranked law school than we would have otherwise been in sans "diversity." Now the real kicker is that, after incurring all this race-based debt at law school (not to mention undergrad--same story), and arguably "financing" the minority whose only difference is skin color (not experience) my future employer (who already views me a slightly inferior candidate compared to my peers at the higher ranked schools that rejected me), now arguably views my candidacy for employment in slightly less favorable terms than the racial minorities at my inferior school. While the "grade curve" is, thankfully, diversity free, I have to wonder when the disadvantages stop. Say I do land an offer for full time employment after this summer (fingers crossed...damned economy!), will my chances of making partner also be limited because I am superficially straight and white? Will my children also experience the same treatment? And, I note, while my children will arguably be "privileged" (assuming I land this job), so will the children of my URM peers at the firm; however, they will receive preferential treatment....Ok...I'm done rambling...but you get the point...

6:24 - "arguably "financing" the minority whose only difference is skin color (not experience)"

ROFLs, you really think skin color does not affect experience regardless of socio-economic class. I've seen better comments from straight racists on this board. This is America and here race is everything. No one cares how you talk or how you dress or act. Most my life I've been told I am white for not being "ghetto" and this has effected my experience. I have also been told that I am "articulate" because I speak correct English when in fact I don't speak like an idiot. Race is experience. You probably didn't deserve to go to Harvard because your reasoning as displayed in your post shows ignorance which Harvard probably wants to reject anytime it sees it. HTFH.

5:41, First, if you read my posts carefully you'll notice that I didn't even mention your argument against affirmative action, I questioned whether you are black because you seem to have such a skewed view of black people and black culture, not because you are anti-AA (which is questionable considering you seem to take such joy in benefiting from it).

Second, your follow up posts only confirms my belief that you are either not black, or a black person who did not grow up around a significant number of black people. This is so because any reasoonable person, regardless of race, recognizes that one person cannot speak for a whole race, yet you attempt to do so with no qualms. To say that the majority of an entire race of people do anything is "absurd," but to say that a race does not value education because one time in a factory this black guy in Maryland asked you if you played football is utterly ridiculous.

Oh, and no form of music solely defines a culture, especially not music whose biggest audience is white teenagers.

No one hear is attacking you as a person, just your reasoning. Good luck with your studies.

p.s. Since when did "doing something like a bitch" mean one didn't go all out, never heard that in my life, by any race.

5:13/5:34

5:41. You don't get it. If black people valued education (I mean the men to not just the females. My school, like many others, has so many more females that get it than males), then we wouldn't be having this AA discussion. I'm not speaking from one experience but many. Walk around you buddy, you can go to a few cities and you'll see some strong black folk, but blacks are mostly trash everywhere. Stop asserting that the MAJORITY of Black Americans value education. This is just absurd. I see no white people arguing with what I said about them because they know they are just whining, but rightfully so. You on the other hand are the epitome of that stupid Black American who does not want to face the truth. Tis so fucking sad.

5:41 - a person can be anti-AA and still enjoy its benefits. One may not like the policy and its effects in the aggregate, but enjoy the personal benefits. This may seem hypocritical, but it is still a possibility.

6:24, outstanding. I wonder how you can be a communist since you obviously have a non-deficient grasp of logic and reason.

Thursday, May 8, 2008 4:39 PM

"Oh, you got me. I made the mistake of comparing women's studies to the equally-fake disciplines of medicine and particle physics. Genius."
---Oh, but I did get you, womyn. Because you didn't bother benying womyn's studies is amade-up subject. And then you made the ridiculous comparison of actual, real sciences to it. 5 minutes of a good course in logic should dispel your stupidity. But you can only handle about 3.

Must be because you're on your period. Now, don't worry your pretty little head about it, fix me some dinner instead! ;)

7:15, Again, if you READ CAREFULLY, you'll notice that I have never said that a majority of black people value education, the essence of my argument is that you cannot speak for the majority of a race, period. Just as easily as you can point to things you believe indicate you are correct, I can point to things that indicate that you are wrong. So in the end, you can really only speak to your personal experience, and as vast as that might be (and for the record, walking around various cities does not quite qualify as an athropological study), it does not qualify you to make unconditional statements about an entire race of people. Especially such broad and overtly offensive statements, as "black people are trash everywhere." And the fact that we are talking about AA doesn't show that black people don't value education, it shows the opposite. If black people didn't value education, then why would they fight for equal access to schools. If they really didn't care, wouldn't they just give it up and move on to another topic? And the fact that there are more black women than men at your school might have something to do with the fact that...um, there are more black women than men, just a guess. I am not going to attempt to label you as stupid, but I would strongly advise that you base your arguments on more than just your feelings, or at least understand that are always two sides to a debate.

7:20 - of course one can enjoy the benefits of AA and still be against it, in most cases, one really doesn't have a choice, but if you reread my post you'll see that I found it interesting that he "took joy" in enjoying the benefits of AA, which seems odd given that he is adamently opposed to it, one would think that he would be disgusted with the fact that he has to accept its benefits (not overjoyed)

6:34--Other than the unnecessary personal attack (i.e. I admitted it was "understandable" I wasn't accepted to Harvard...neither of my parents went to college, I didn't lead/found any altruistic sounding charitable organizations or hold public office, I’ve bagged groceries, oh yes, and I'm legitimately lower middle class…so no libraries there or anywhere are named after my uncle), I agree with you. I also apologize for any offense caused by my failure to qualify the "arguably financing the minority whose only difference is skin color (not experience)" statement by saying something like: “I don’t mean for this statement (“the minority”) to be read both contrary to its plain meaning (“the minority” singular) and defensively to encompass “all minorities.” It is applicable to anyone (orange, pedophile, hermaphroditic, falsified resume/personal statement, etc…) who received undeserved “diversity aid” made possible by my poor straight white full tuition contribution. Of course, if I had to do that for every plain statement that could be read both inaccurately and out of context, it would take me a lot longer to write these pointless comments.

I was merely trying to give you "my perspective" as a poor white in a "diversity driven" system, my concerns for my future and my children's future in this society, and a glimpse of the things that go through my head when I hear the word "diversity" or am "not invited" to any of the 30 weekly functions held by every/any group that can conceivably define themselves as not being "white straight male." If you are implying that I’m bigoted (as you said “white…racist”), I won’t dignify you by defending myself. However, I would like to note that this whole “immutable characteristic conscious” social problem is exacerbated, not remedied, by “diversity initiatives.” The only time I (white male) think about color/orientation/etc… is when it is rubbed in my face by either (1) the “insert name of diverse student group” meeting from which I am excluded or (2) my worries concerning “diversity initiatives” hindering my/my children’s ability to make it out of the trailer park. I note: I realize whites don’t think about race as much as “minority groups,” but isn’t than an argument against any underlying “change” rationale for “diversity initiatives”? This argument, of course, assumes diversity is aimed at the “white perspective” and not “everyone’s perspective.” But, if the only people who are, in fact, “insert ‘immutable’ characteristic here” conscious today are the “possessors of that characteristic,” doesn’t this whole system/mindset seem sort of silly and self-perpetuating?

Now that I am thinking about it, while I was slightly offended by Lat’s inappropriate remark (“white males…leave”), I agree with the underlying logic. That is, diversity is based on the premise that the status quo ex ante is an artificially exclusive, completely homogenous, white society that harms “minorities” in significant ways. Three interesting questions that arise from identifying this assumption are: (1) does the assumption still hold to a degree justifying “diversity initiatives”?; (2) if yes, when will the assumption cease to be valid?; and (3) when (note: not “if”) the assumption fails, are “diversity initiatives” defined solely by membership in a former “immutable minority/oppressed” group rational? Wouldn’t the answer only be “yes” if you are either (1) seeking a wealth/welfare redistribution based on another assumption regarding white wealth/minority poverty or (2) imposing something approximating “punitive damages” on all existing whites for the actions of a small percentage of past whites? Again, disclaimer, this is a “white straight perspective.” I certainly don’t mean to discount everyone’s current/past experiences. These are just the things the white straight male in the hallway of your law school/firm thinks about. If his perspective is unimportant or offensive to you, I apologize.

Regardless, obviously our experiences differ to some degree ("a lot" as you would have it) because of race. And, in most instances, race determines many aspects of experience (e.g. the bastard with the “articulate” comment you mentioned…who deserved “a Chuck-Norris-style roundhouse kick to the face”). But, an interesting question to ask would be: "what kind of differential experience are we seeking to promote when we promote “diversity?” (assuming, of course, that we are trying to promote experiential diversity by promoting “diversity”…) Are we merely seeking to promote “racial understanding/empathy.” Are we trying to promote differential “real life experiences” that will make students well rounded (not implying the two don’t overlap to some degree)? I don’t know the answer. And, while I commend law schools/firms for requiring personal statements/interviews that ostensibly seek to add an individualized aspect to the admissions process, I note that the effect of those statements is undermined by the US News, Vault, or ABA quantifications of “diversity” as merely race/sex percentage. Law schools/firms have to discount individual experience in order to make the race/sex percentages look “good.” (i.e. defacto adoption of diversity=race/sex paradigm) So, I guess, some of my problem with "diversity" arises when third parties (e.g. corporate clients or rankings) interject themselves into the process and quantify "diversity" as merely “%black, % asian, % man, % woman, % gay, %etc...” That, and the whole idea of “diversity” and fixation on meaningless (which you would agree) differences stops us from considering truly important things (e.g. shit, we’re all poor, undereducated, and controlled by a government rapidly approaching totalitarianism…and, shit, there are only like 1000 people who control 80% of the wealth, choose our leaders, and establish social norms…shit, maybe we, the other 299,998,000, could do something about that…)

Anyway, I’m rambling again…but I do take your point 6:34. I can sympathize (not empathize) with your position. Although I haven’t been judged based on some “immutable” characteristic, I was born poor and have been stereotyped at various times as both “racist” and “ignorant/stupid” because of my “poor white accent” (read “drawl”). It fucking sucks.

9:30- keep arguing that black people value education and your posts look like those of an imbecile. So a few of our leaders fought for equal schools, but that doesn't mean most black people value education.

You are correct when I can only speak for my self, but BLACK PEOPLE ARE TRASH EVERYWHERE. Get over buddy, stop being so sensitive. I've lived in several major cities and in most of them black people are the majority of the trash (along with hispanics). Of course you'll find cities where there are many wealthy blacks (Atlanta, DC, Chicago, etc.), but most black people do not value education. You are arguing with me, but the statistics are out there and I'm not going to do your research for you.

You must be a woman because you are taking it personal. I'm black and I take it personal that most black people I come across are cleaning toilets or security guards, etc. That is all I see of most of them and I'm probably not alone. Get over it. 80% of Jewish people go to college. What percentage of blacks go to college? What percentage of Asians go to college? You don't get it. These people are discriminated against because they would take over the law schools or colleges if their numbers were not limited. We are let in with lower standards because most of us would not be able to make it. As long as there is a so called "compelling public interest" in education being diverse, then AA is good. As soon as people question this then it is dead.

YOU'RE AN IMBECILE if you cannot understand how someone can take joy in something on a personal level (easier to get into l school, get a high paying job, drive my nice car) and not like it on a bigger level (AA undermines the success of minorities that do really earn their way, whites hate minorities more, minorities find it easier to work for whites as opposed to starting their own businesses, etc).

12:33 - I'm with you and I did not mean to personally attack you. I agree with most of what you say. It is good to have a conversation with someone that can understand both sides of the picture and knows what it is like to be judged. If only we can get 9:30 am to understand, but he or she is obviously a typical black (I am black, but atypical black) and is stuck in their own misery and unable to think about the ramifications of AA.

9:30 is so disillusioned they find it hard to understand how I can enjoy the benefits of AA, but still think there is something wrong with it when I look beyond the benefits the programs confer on me.

And for the record, I hate diversity initiatives, meetings, etc. I getting into school and getting a job and that's all I need. I don't need more BS (I'm against minority student run clubs).