I'll start the xoxo comments...

1. It doesn't matter if it's not the Law Review.

2. Is this SUNY-Binghamton or SUNY-Stony Brook?

I think the ranting tipster meant to say "melanin" instead of "melatonin."

First, it seems a bit odd that writing ability counts for only 10% of the total score - I'd expect it to be much higher. That being said, you don't need to know anything to be able to check footnotes, so I guess it doesn't matter.

Second, I also agree that if it's not law review, it doesn't matter.

Third, I think it's ridiculous to award points for sexual orientation, race, etc. If they want a diverse group, they should fill the majority of spots ignoring all such factors, then see where their gaps may be, and then fill in the remaining spots.

James Webb: This is the result of how affirmative action, which was basically a justifiable concept when it applied to African-Americans, expanded to every single ethnic group in America that was not white.

Pretty true, IMHO.

isnt new york law school a TTT ... why do they have so many journals?

"[P]referring non-reproductive sex..."

I wonder if Tipster is having sex and not using contraception.

3:22 is so right. If it's not law review, as long as it's not the all WASP journal, it should be a meritocracy (and really, so should law review - but a girl can dream). On my T10 non-law review journal, editorial board members were the ones who didn't yell "not it" fast enough at the elections. I'm pretty sure that journal members were just the ones whose journal tryouts were acceptable and who chose the journal when offered membership.

I wasn't even going to do a journal until I went on a 1L summer call-back and the lawyers (from lower T1 schools) made it sound like you had to in order to get a job. Now, I know that is an absolute crock - and I don't care one bit when I look at SA candidates (unless they're law review). I wish I could have had those hours of cite-checking and blue-booking articles back.

Just shows that the richness of diversity that SDO expoused based on the Bakke decision means nothing unless it is realistic and "soft". Assigning numerical values for this stuff goes completely against the Supreme Court's guidance. Besides, the ethnicity should be judged based on number of ethnic backgrounds. If you are just black you get the same points as someone who is just white. If you are like BHO, you would get more points for being both. Same thing with sexuality. If you only like one gender you shouldn't get as many points as someone who likes both genders.

I am skeptical. I was an editor on JILP and graded the writing comp. in 2006. Staff editors only graded the writing competition itself. Board members looked at the personal statements.

3:29 - You are probably a troll, but I will take the bait. NYU Law School is not the same as New York Law School. They are separated by several tiers.

Why does sexual orientation matter for an international law journal?

Why does sexual orientation matter for an international law journal? What about political diversity?

That is so wrong. I can't believe they didn't include astrological signs for extra points as well.

...

Oh wait, that must be what the discretionary points are for.

I think the biggest controversy here is the inability of the editorial board to do basic math.

14+7+7+10=40??

"First, it seems a bit odd that writing ability counts for only 10% of the total score "

It only seems odd if you've never read any of Phil Telfyian's HLR note.

Lots of math troubles: 6+6+6+6=18???

The whole "sexual orientation" criteria seems to be pretty vague--what if you're a tranny who likes the opposite sex (assuming you are post-op and considered the gender that you changed to)?

All journals are pointless. Being on a journal isn't fun. Instead of spending time being angry or doing journal work, spend the time studying and get better grades. Good grades will get you much further than journal experience.

uh you guys have lots of common sense troubles. I think those numbers are max point values. so if you were a senior citizen, economically disadvantage, gay, minority, you'd still only get 18, instead of 24.

there is a silver lining here: i wont feel guilty for suspending contributions to the school...

proving once again this is the best legal blog EVA!!!

The admissions for NYU Law as well as freshman admissions at most US universities consider race etc to be more important than academic achievement so why not law review? Most of the NYU Law students were admitted without regard to their academic abilities and probably couldn't understand a well written and researched law review article; the law review articles should be written by someone that the audience for that law review could understand

I think HLR uses this same criteria for its membership. According to the rubric, you get 2 more points for being black and gay than you would for having perfect structure, style and grammar.

Phil--is this how you got on HLR?

re 3:44...

That might explain the 6+6+6+6=18 fuzzy math, but it certainly doesn't explain the 14+7+7+10=40 fiasco.

Hmmm -- diversity in background is a proxy for diversity of opinion. cut the thinly veiled p.c. language and you have: "racial/ethnic minority is a proxy for thinking differently."

wow.

The "writing" rating refers to the writing of the personal statement. When weighed against the points awarded for the actual writing competition, the diversity section is a minor factor.

3:44

It has nothing to do with common sense. I don't think that that would have been obvious to Joe on the Street. I'd put it more in the class of critical thinking and/or logic.

More racism from liberals.

Diversity of race does not equal diversity of thought/opinion/perspective/etc.

fortunately or unfortunately, Joe on the Street does not grade journal competition entries

It's clear writing ability only counts for 10%. They don't even have the i.e. vs. e.g. thing down.

What is that Lat? Did you say a comment clusterfuck is brewing? Yes....I agree. What was that? Oh ya, there are definitely going to be some heated arguments and accusations of racism on the horizon.

Wait, what was that last thing Lat? Oh...THIS is why you are hiring new contributors. Yep, these "intelligent" lawyers always fall for the old Affirmative Action trick--just like Pavlov's dog.

Having been on UVA's international journal and graded 1L try outs I can tell you that we judged applicants strictly based on their tryout. If an applicant chose to include a personal statement, those were read if their score was near the cutoff but otherwise you had to actually do well on the tryout to get on the journal. Perhaps this is why VJIL out ranks NYU's international journal in citations by a large margin.
http://lawlib.wlu.edu/LJ/index.aspx

Conservatives or people who would be classified as "moderates anywhere else, are the most disadvantaged group at NYU Law. If AA is going to ge given to any group at NYU Law, it should go to conservatives.

People who express what would be mainstream opinions elsewhere are routinely vilified by both professors and students alike. I know a number of right-of-center students who graduated order of the coif who should have made law review (if the journal was truly interested in diversifying their staff).

Anyone who thinks race is more relevant to admission than academic success in either UG or LS must be either an idiot or a high school student. Go back to mowing lawns kid, its all you'll ever get a chance to do anyway.

Wow, this is unbelievable. I can think of about 20 people on my journal's staff who are diverse, have international interest, and know a foreign language, who would be terrible editors. I thought journals wanted to at least make an attempt to be well-run and put out a good product, but clearly that's not the NYU agenda.

This is such a perversion of affirmative action it's not even funny.

Guys in my high school used to get on yearbook for being gay all the time. It was no big deal.

In addition to being embarrassing in general, it does seem offensive that they are weighing the legitimacy, or I guess "value" would be more appropriate, of someone's ethnicity and sexual preference.

Did they have to submit a family tree?

3:26 PM -- you ignorant. White guys contribute very little, if at all, to the affirmative action (suffer nothing either) . It is the east asians that have been robbed of their quotas which are taken by blacks, hispanics, etc.

Ask ourselves, why do east asians have to give out their quotas? are they victims of historical racial discrimination together with the blacks? AND, why do hispanics benefit from this since they are never victims of it?

Anyone tell me, what is the point of the affirmative action? to address historical wrong or nowawadays problems?

3:53, get real. Liberals don't care about diversity of though.

Re: the comment from a past JILP editor that this doesn't seem plausible: unless you guys work differently from every other journal on campus, it makes perfect sense to me. The board of my (non-LR) journal at NYU basically printed off the scoring sheets from the previous year, modified them to our liking ("diversity" points went to 4 from 10, for what it's worth), and used those as the new scoring system. If each year can do what it wants, why should it be the same two years later?

in re: 4:02 -

I've heard that Law Review's diversity policy is nothing like this at all - apparently they were smart enough to read Gratz and Grutter.

I know a guy who was straight as an arrow at University of Michigan Law School who sized up his chances of writing on the law review and decided, overnight, that he was gay. He began attending gay student organization meetings, applied for gay scholarships, and then went home at night to shag his very attractive girlfriend. He "successfully" wrote on to the law review.

Pretty much exposes the whole ridiculousness of the system. Exec Board later eliminated this but it is revsisted each year by idiots.

It's insulting to say that racial and ethnic minorities must think differently than other people. Anyway, how are opinions relevant to work on a journal that holds itself out to be a journal of legal scholarship? Scholarship (one hopes) shouldn't be a matter of preconceived "opinions" but rigorous, objective analysis of arguments.

I agree with 3:53. If you are female, will you marry me?

Stop complaining, find a gay hooker, and you've earned yourself one brownie point (figuratively and literally).

Has anyone pointed out that the writing ability grading rubric as compared to the diversity rubric at issue is strictly for the personal statement? The competition result is graded blindly.

if anybody had any balls they'd sue the nyu journal because of violating gratz.

Yes, it has been pointed out. No one cares. Also worth pointing out that the points have been subsequently modified. People don't want the truth, they want an excuse to vent anger.

4:16...yeah, this private university's student group sure is violating Gratz.

What a load of crap journal. How can anyone defend this with a straight face?

Dear NYU 1Ls: I am a senior assoc at a NYC v20 who does screeners during fall OCI. I am going to auto-ding anyone with this "journal" on their resume.

Dear NYU Career Services: see above

Bet the tipster is a Russian Jew :)

Can you name the "someone affiliated with the NYU Journal of International Law and Politics." This person just committed the ultimate no-no of justifying affirmative action, which is to suggest that race, sexual orientation, etc. is a good proxy for opinion. Said another way, it is "blacks all think the same way" and "gays all think the same way."

Pro tip: when pretending to be a v20 Senior Associate, try not to be an idiot. It ruins the flame.

3:34(1):
if the journal takes it proverbially in the can, might as well have editors who actually do the same

What do you expect? you attend uber liberal NYU- your professors also want to overthrow the US Govt.

As someone who was a staff editor at the NYU Journal of International Law and Politics, I had to grade the writing competition. As previous posters noted, the competition result is graded blindly. I had no idea that this rubric was even used for the personal statement.

I wish the board members had made staff members and perspective members aware of this rubric. I might not have done JILP, if I had known of the rubric at the time of the journal competition. JILP, is arguably the second hardest journal to get on to and this policy coming into light arguably devalues being on this journal.

Could I get points on sexual orientation for being polyamorous?

who cares about these things when deciding on journal members?!! can someone please explain why schools (the better the school the more true) have to out-liberal each other? does it have to do with funding or is it just the way they are? i'm no crazy neocon but this liberalism is just ridiculous!!

At U.C. Berkeley, the Law Review selection process makes it clear that applicants of color, as expressed in the applicants' personal statements, will be given extra consideration. Any thoughts on the constitutionality or legality of this, since it's a journal published under the auspices of a public university (in California, a state that has banned race-based preferences)?

Please. This rubric only refers to the personal statement, not the actual writing exercise. If anything, it shows that diversity is only a very small part of the admission equation

344(1) obviously didn't make law review and otherwise completely blew the writing competition.

It doesn't matter what portion of the criteria this rubric represents. Basing admission to a journal in any part on race/gender/sexual orientation/etc. is inappropriate and wrong.

Look at it this way - would any of you defend this rubric if it gave extra points for being white? Wealthy? Straight? Nope - you'd decry the journal and everyone involved.

It is racist to assume that simply being of a specific skin color will contribute to "diversity". The unstated assumption is that all black people think alike, and they all think differently from all white people.

It's as justifiable as saying that short people or fat people should be proportionately represented for diversity purposes. People without glasses/contacts seem to be underrepresented in the law school/journal population, so let's have 16 points of affirmative action for those with good eyesight.

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

4:46...if white, wealthy, and straight represented underrepresented personal backgrounds, I would support extra points for those qualities.

It is very simple. Your race and sexual orientation affect your life experiences. Your life experiences affect your worldview.

But even if you had a good argument, it would be an argument the tipster should have had enough integrity to have in person, not anonymously.

4:51 - so discrimination is okay as long as you like the results? Interesting moral compass.

4:51, due to disproportionately large number of Jewish people in top law schools (~30% at Harvard for example, when Jews are 2% of the general population), WASPs and other white Gentiles do indeed represent "underrepresented personal backgrounds."
Yet liberal affirmative-action supporters never seem to support extra points for WASPs.

I guarantee you, 4:56, that white gentiles at Harvard are still not quite "underrepresented".

I love white person victimization. Oh, how awful! How terrible! How will I ever live?!?!?

I stutter, do I get bonus points?

4:55: Yep, that's pretty much it. Just like a journal discriminates in favor of good writers because the results are good, a journal should discriminate in favor of a diversity of opinion because the results are good. If you've got a better proxy than socioeconomic demographics, let's hear it.

"I love white person victimization. Oh, how awful! How terrible! How will I ever live?!?!?"

Never heard that argument before, wow how insightful, how witty, what a revelation. Sarcasm really changes people minds!

You've just convinced me to vote for Obama!

5:00, minorities (blacks, hispanics, Asians) make up 25% of Harvard and 25% of America general population. Affirmative action ensures those numbers are roughly equal. That leaves 75% for whites.

At Harvard, Jews are about 30%, so assuming that most Jews are white, that means only about 45% of Harvard are white Gentiles.

In the general population, Jews are about 2%, so that means the remaining 73% of the general population are white Gentiles.

My math is not great, but 45% compared to 73% sounds like underrepresentation.

Let me put it another way. If white Gentiles are adequately represented, and minorities are too, then what race is losing 28% when the Jews are overrepresented by 28%?

jewish nation has a tremendous work ethic due to their history of getting thrown out of every county they lived in (besides the great US of A)! that explains the large representation in the legal world as well as in every facet of life. or it could just be the brains!!!!!

is the claim that harvard university including the college and all the grad schools is 30% jewish? or just hls? or just harvard college? please clarify. i doubt that statistic is true for any of those options

"Because the results are good." Way to beg the question.

hey gambini what the hell are you talking about.

Please don't try to argue that Jews are not overrepresented in top law schools (i.e., that only 2% of their law students are Jews). HLS and other top law schools are about 30% Jewish.

Once again, if Jews are overrepresented by about 28% in law schools, what group besides white Gentiles is losing by 28% and thus underrepresented?
All underrepresented groups deserve affirmative action.

If it werent for AA mediocre whites would have noone to blame for doing the WUSTL or wasting time on the NYU Journal of International Important Things and Stuff

At Boalt, er, Berkeley Law, 20 percent of your write on score for The law review - that is, California Law Review - is a 'diversity' statement. I'm guessing the rubric is similar.

All Vinny Gambini is saying is that there is one underrepresented group that does not receive affirmative action, and that is white Gentiles. That should be obvious since there are so many Jews in law schools.

If you go to a T14, almost every other white person has some Jewish ancestry. That's definitely not true outside law schools, so non-Jewish whites are underrepresented.

Reality Check:

There are 6 possible points for racial diversity out of 100 points for the personal statement, which is itself less than half of the total score.

So everyone is up-in-arms about a maximum of 3% of the overall score being assigned because of diverse background.

On a journal that deals more than most with issues relating to ethnic strife, it hardly seems unacceptable to accord some value to a person's experience as an ethnic minority.

5:40, so it's ok to racially discriminate if it's only 3%? I guess you won't complain if the journal gave whites 6 extra points, or we give whites 70 extra points on the SAT, or if the city paid whites $70,000 and blacks $68,000 for the same job.

Glad to see you're so understanding about racial diversity.

i think people are forgetting that the personal statement, which would show your editing, writing, and other verbal skills, count for 100 points. The rubric then adds another potential 100 points, but most likely significantly less. So the diversity portion doesn't weigh as much as people are thinking at all.

5:44: no, it's not ok to racially discriminate, even at 3%. but this is not racial discrimination.

5:44 How do you propose the journal justly value potential member's experience as an ethnic minority? Or do you propose that this experience has no value to the journal? If the latter, why isn't the experience of being an ethnic minority relevant to writing and editing articles about the law as it relates to the persecution of such people?

In the non-sequiter board earlier today there was a question that asked why a Harvard JD/MBA is working for Lateral Link and not something more prestigious. An hour later is this response:

"11:09 - my guess is that she didn't deserve to be at Harvard but only gained acceptance because they hold reserved spots for people of her "background." When OCI season rolled around (after she crashed and burned as a SA), employers saw through the affirmative-action acceptance, and have relegated her to the jobs she is capable of performing.

Disclosure: URM @ T10, and I hate that the hard work I put in to get here goes uncredited because people around me assume the same thing about me as I do about the lady in the Lateral Link add. I admit that I am guilty of hypocrisy, but that is the point- policies like those of law schools that hold different groups of people to different standards are hypocritical and breed hypocrisy in their students (Caucasians, URMs, and non-URMs alike). Down with affirmative action! If we are really as smart as we consider ourselves, we ought to be able to earn opportunities based on merit and not skin color.

Lat: future post idea? I'd love to see the contentious discussion after a pro/con post about this."

Coincedence that this post came only hours before this new discussion? Hmm. Talk amongst yourselves...

5:50, if that person has suffered actual persecution as an ethnic minority, he can write about it. That way you can pick your Armenian whose family fled Turkey (but is still considered "white" and does not get the extra 6 points), or the Jewish refugee from Russia, instead of the black guy from middle-class Atlanta.

Trust me, white people sometimes suffer ethnic persecution too.

These journal diversity morons are going to get a rude awakening when they get into the real world.

I used to work for the MBE/WBE compliance officer in a city government office and he used to say the same thing (as the quote in 5:50): that AA was the worst for those minorities that actually earned their accomplishmnets because everybody would think they were just the product of some quota. He was (is still, I guess) African American, and his entire job focused on making sure contractors for government projects were complying with MBE/WBE requirements, and he still thought AA and similar policies were totally counterintuitive.

5:59 The process is anonymous. The only way the journal knows about a person's ethnic status is if they write about it, presumably in some way that shows why it is meaningful. You wrongly assume that an Armenian or Russian Jew would not get these points. You have no basis whatsoever for that assumption.

The comment about the Harvard JD/MBA on Lateral Link was right on. I thought exactly the same...AA "diversity" place.......too bad.

6:09, hey at least her black skin contributed to "diversity" while she was at HLS. That's all that matters and we can pat ourselves on the back.

Who knows what boundless insights she brought to classroom discussions simply because she had more melanin pigments than average.

What's to stop everyone from claiming points for sexual orientation? It is impossible to prove. At least the other categories are somewhat inherent and identifiable. Your sexual orientation can be whatever you say it is.

For anyone thinking about transferring, my journal still has room for an albino tranny and a female midget with leprosy.

what's the big deal? diversity, which includes a catch-all category of equal weight, counts for 18% of the personal statement only. presumably the competition also includes an edit and/or essay, which are weighted much higher (and also explain why writing ability only gets 10% weight on the PS). on my LR, the personal statement doesn't even matter for 80+% of the 2L slots.

6:23 Perhaps the presumption is that no one would be so petty as to lie--and maintain the pretense of the lie for two years--in order to cheat their way onto a secondary journal. Just a guess.

Why not an intellectual diversity section? Sounds like a good proxy for... intellectual diversity?

Why not an intellectual diversity section? Sounds like a good proxy for... intellectual diversity?

At my law school, they use a very similar rubric except they make you come in for an interview and prove your credentials:

"Ok now sit quietly and prove you're 5/6ths black."

[crickets]

"Good, welcome aboard."

Same with gay applicants...

why don't the white-liberal-guilt-self-haters just flog themselves and throw themselves down flights of stairs to repent for their forefathers' sins instead of making a mockery of academia - and the people they're trying to advance?

6:24-
I'll trade you one of my leprotic female midgets for an articulate black tranny.
-SLR EIC

I'm sure black men love being lumped in there with gay men . . .

JILP is not the NYU Law Review.

My understanding is that the Law Review designates a certain number (1/4?) of it's slots to be selected based on a diversity statement, but only from kids who are otherwise in the top half of the application pool.

The problem with JILPs approach seems to be that an unbounded number of their slots might be filled through a diversity process, rather than merit. At least with the Law Review, it's capped.

Let's be real here. First, the people that really want to be on JILP are a small self-selected bunch who are dedicated to, or at least pretty interested in, international law issues. Not that many people. Second, none of the NYU journals are competitive except for Law Review. Pretty much, anyone that wants to get onto JILP will get on. So who cares? They could probably take every applicant who ranks them as a first or second choice. Get over yourself; this is a non-controversy.

Here is the most "diverse" candidate I could come up with.....

Black, female, one-legged, communist, former-Black Panther, alleges rape by Duke lacrosse team.......

Studying abroad is worth more than writing style? All that wasted time trying to become a great writer. Apparently I should've just spent Junior year getting drunk in Australia for ungraded credits and I'd be in like Flynn.

Honestly, this journal is a complete joke.

7:35, Or maybe you should have spent some more time working on your reading comprehension. For the fourth time, the writing style section is only for the writing of the personal statement; the much larger proportion of points are awarded from the writing competition itself.

7:35, is it any surprise that a politically correct liberal journal would care more about simple-minded indicia of diversity, instead of actual intellectual diversity and actual merit?

I was Law Review at Western New England School of Law. Power, pussy, and prestige. Worth every sleepless night.

7:09, obviously you either didn't make a journal or your ELJ or Law & Liberty. Most journals are somewhat competitive.

Is there a single top 5 school with a journal that doesn't provide any weight to diversity?

7:39 - I know the writing style section only applies to the personal statement, but thanks for the sarcasm anyways. However, limiting writing style to 2/100 points for the personal statement renders the entire exercise pointless. Why not just ask for a resume or have them fill out a form checking off the various categories. Its a ridiculous waste of everyone's time to grant 98 points based on bare facts and then allot an additional 2 points for them taking the time to weave it all together into a well written essay. As I said: its a joke.

7:39 - To tell you the truth I entered law school a very left leaning liberal but the extent to which law schools implement AA in various circumstances has led me to question my values. I honestly don't know what I believe any more.

There shouldn't be a writing competition at NYU to begin with. NYU, should do what other selective law schools such as Harvard and Stanford have done and have writing comp. only for law review, while allowing anyone who wants to be on a journal sign-up. All you do is blue-booking. You don't need a background in anything to do that and the journal comp. is just a waste of time and something no one wants to do after just finishing finals.

7:47..umm, what? You complained that studying abroad was worth more than writing style. That is simply false.

And now you write that assigning points to the content of the personal statement (which is the point of it) makes it "a ridiculous waste of everyone's time."

Seriously, you're either not that good at reasoning, or not that good at writing what you mean to say. Either way, you might want to avoid commenting further.

"Diversity" is such bs. As many of the posters pointed out, you can make anyone into a minority by changing the classifications.

The problem here is that the traits do not relate to what the goals should be. If you are looking for "diversity of opinion," giving a boost to a homosexual does not further that goal (unless you get lucky). Someone who is straight could have to same opinions as someone who is gay. Someone who is white could have had the same experiences as someone who is black (say, growing up poor in an all-black neighborhood).

We all know that "diversity" means "black." "woman," or "gay." Why? Because it is popular to be on that train these days. It has nothing to do with merit.

So, being on a journal at NYU has nothing to do with merit - fine. Unless, of course, you are Asian, and to a lesser extent, white (since we all have seen the research which indicates that AA disproportionately affects QUALIFIED Asians, as in, the average quality of Asian students turned away is higher than white students turned away).

The conclusions to be drawn are simple: if you see a straight Asian or white man, who still succeeded, you know he is a badass. If you see anyone who is black, gay, or a woman, you'd best think twice before offering them that job that requires competency. Not that every black, gay, or female person is incompetent, but their credibility is impeached by things like this.

NYU is free to decide what they think is important in a candidate. The problem we all have is we expect it to be merit. Deal with it.

4:51 PM: Growing up and being fat is a real stigma, and it really affects how you experience the world. Everyone hates fat people. But no one wants to help fat people. Would you support AA for fat people on the basis of the intense and hateful discrimination that they have to overcome everyday?

4:51 said "4:46...if white, wealthy, and straight represented underrepresented personal backgrounds, I would support extra points for those qualities.

It is very simple. Your race and sexual orientation affect your life experiences. Your life experiences affect your worldview.

But even if you had a good argument, it would be an argument the tipster should have had enough integrity to have in person, not anonymously."

To all the apologists saying that this discrimination is not a big ideal because it's only 6 points out of 200, you're missing the entire point. The point is that a law review should not discriminate on the basis of race or sexual orientation, regardless of the size of the extra boost.

Let's say that the Journal of Law and Business had a 200-point sheet where 6 points is given to someone who is straight, and 6 points is given to someone who is white. You would justifiably be upset, and not be mollified by the argument that 6 is only 3% of 200 and that a much larger proportion of points is used for other factors.

There is also no evidence that minorities and gays are underrepresented in the journal. In fact, given their typical liberal leanings I would imagine that they would already be overrepresented even if there was no point boost. So to argue that the points are to remedy underrepresentation is ridiculous. It's like the Black Law Journal giving preference to blacks because they're an "underrepresented" minority.

Dude, for the second day I am going to back Vinny Gambini up. Asians get screwed hard by AA because their enrollment gets capped. I would support AA in law school if Jews could be capped as well, since that would make the process more fair for every race. They're the only grossly overrepresented group at my school (T14) and on every journal.

ANY Journal of International Law and Politics = loser

I'm on my firm's minority hiring committee. A west coast client, one of the firm's most important, has sent us a similar scoring sheet only the points are for deciding whether we get to keep the business. A history of winning big cases doesn't count for as much as the color of your skin it seems.

Anyway, if you happen to see any one-legged gay Eskimos (aka Aleutian Islanders) hopping around south Florida, JD in hand or JD-eligible, please send him/her/whatever our way. There's a $10,000 reward.

if clients are so concerned about diversity in the workplace, they should go out and frigging hire some more minorities. Why force their lawyers to do it?

As a former Executive Board member of JILP, let me clarify what was evidently missed by the commenters-->this refers to selection of the next years' Executive Board, not selection for the Journal itself.

Further, NYU's journals are ALL selective. JILP turn away about 50% of its applicants each year.

9:12, no this is for selection to the journal, not the Board. Board decisions are made in the Spring for the upcoming school year made in the Fall.

Aside from all the other issues, what about privacy?

I suppose the first category is for visible racial minority/ethnic heritage might be obvious (no Eastern Europeans etc. need apply unless their minority religion qualifies as "ethnic"?).

But what about someone who says: sexual orientation, none of your business; economic hardship, none of your business; Possible disability (I know some people with e.g. health problems that are a "disability" but not visible, as well as mental disability) or age (looking young for one's age?), none of your business.

Did no-one consider that even if they want to be "diverse" prying into people's privacy is itself a problem?!

Speaking of Eastern Europeans, "matryoshka" (матрешка) is pretty clearly singular. This misuse "matryoshka are" in the first sentence of this post sets the stage for the ensuing uninformed vitriol and asinine discussion.

I'd like to add a couple of points.

First, I don't have anything to cite on hand, but I know from medical students I have talked with that this sort of post-post-post secondary affirmative action has even occurred in medical education at the level of gaining entry into competitive SPECIALTIES. I would like to think that ethnic background or sexual orientation had nothing--and that merit had everything--to do with the choice of whatever neurosurgeon or cancer specialist I may need one day, but unfortunately, I can't even trust that. That is far scarier to me than who is chosen for a law journal.

That being said, for all of you who seem to think there is any point distinguishing between a "Journal of International Law and Politics" and a school's main "Law Review" at a top school, my experience at a T20 school was that what journal you were able to get onto was almost an exact reflection of a person's first year grades and had nothing to do with the Bluebooking Test or the Notes we spent so many hours feverishly preparing under the misguided impression that anyone would care. It's really quite sad: the system does not take into consideration the fact that some students are excellent writers and thinkers, who could greatly contribute to Journals' viewpoint diversity, but simply are not as good at spouting off every possibly relevant piece of law under timed conditions so as to gain the maximum number of points on exams.

Obviously I am writing this as one of those who was burned, but it certainly was a shared experience with many others. I simply point this out because one (completely legitimate) aspect of diversity I did not see respected, at least at my school, was to a diversity of personalities and talents--an effort which would naturally bring about more diversity of thought. Of course, I am not saying that grades should have nothing to do with it, but based on who was accepted onto our Law Review, I simply do not believe their supposed policy of accepting 50% "pure write-on" applications--because what I saw in many of them was excellent test takers, but not necessarily the best thinkers. To the contrary, some of the brightest thinkers I met at law school would not have a chance in hell of getting onto a prestigious journal. And that, I think, is a detriment to the journals and to the legal community.

Well, I could go on forever about my gripes about the whole system of legal education. But I'll close with this observation:

Perhaps one of the reasons this journal (and so many others) find it necessary to so heavily weight race/ethnicity/sexual orientation and (to my mind, to a much lesser extent) gender, is because, as many of my "minority" friends have confided to me themselves--why would they subject themselves to the huge pain-in-the-ass that is being on a journal, when they are in such demand that they are virtually guaranteed a job regardless of journal membership?

When I was on Law Review (1991-92), the Editorial Board tried to pass an affirmative action policy for law review membership and it failed by one vote. The arguments against it then are just as compelling today. First, the law school already has an affirmative action admissions policy. If that policy is working, then qualified minorities (who don't necessarily have the LSAT scores and GPA to get in) are being admitted and, assuming they are qualified, then they should be getting onto law journals in numbers commensurate with their representation in the student body. If they are not, then the affirmative action program in the admissions process is probably flawed, and using affirmative action for law review is compounding the flaws in the admissions program by rewarding people who should not have been admitted in the first place. Second, this is the beginning of a slippery slope. When I was on Law Review, you had to write a publishable Note in order to be eligible to be on the Editorial Board as a 3L. If the affirmative action program for getting onto law journals results in a significant number of minorities who can't produce a publishable Note, then there will be calls for yet another affirmative action program for election to the Editorial Board on the ground that the Note-writing review process is somehow discriminatory and doesn't create enough diversity on the Board. Finally, how do people account for the fact that women have managed to be represented on law journals in numbers that equal or exceed their representation in the student body without any affirmative action?

You're assuming the justification for the policy is to compensate for some other unfairness. The stated justification is to promote diversity. Do you not understand the difference?

Comment in regard to the discussion much earlier about white Gentiles being underrepresented due to the high (overrepresented) percentage of Jewish people who are white at top law schools:

I don't like AA action much, but I think this line of reasoning may be flawed. First, there is something to be said for helping members of MINORITY groups that are underrepresented in certain fields more than in helping members of MAJORITY groups who are underrepresented in certain fields. Protecting minorities from the will of the majority is a major part of our legal system. The presumption, anyway, is that members of a MAJORITY group who are underrepresented have more power than MINORITIES, or at least that the underrepresentation is not so egregious. I am not sure exactly what I think of this point, but there seems to be a distinction that has been ignored.

Second, in my opinion these demographic lines are all arbitrary anyway: given that we can all procreate together, these lines we draw are just convenient (or sometimes inconvenient) categories that help us to understand what people look like and where they are from. So, if "black" and "white" don't really mean anything, then neither do "Jew" and "Gentile." I guess I mean to say that I don't think one can simultaneously maintain that these categories are arbitrary and then complain that there is a TRUE distinction in a sub-group of "white" people. Or, if there is, then we need to divvy up each major "race" into various subgroups and then try to figure out which are under- and which are over-represented.

But then we run into the same problem posed by bi- and multi-racial people messing up our neat categories. For example, most "Jews" could also be classified as being of "eastern European descent," and it could be the case that, excepting Jews, Americans of Eastern European descent are UNDER represented in comparison to their population in the United States, so the "Jewish" presence is in fact helping to properly balance out the "western" vs. "eastern" European proportions among "white" Americans.

The main point is that separating out "white Jews" and "white Gentiles" is--especially considering the Jewish intermarriage rate of 50%--probably even MORE arbitrary than dividing up "white, "Native American," "black," "Hispanic," etc. "White Gentiles" are just as illusory as any other group.

Maybe these points are obvious to everyone, but just wanted to point them out.

1:16, poor people are a majority. Plenty of affirmative action programs help poor people. Blacks are a majority in DC so DC schools can't have pro-black affirmative action, right? yeah right.

Affirmative action is designed to remedy underrepresentation and promote "diversity." It's not a coincidence that blacks and Hispanics in law schools closely track their general population proportions. Now, Jews are highly overrepresented while whites of non-Jewish descent are underrepresented. No matter how you define Jewish, white Gentiles are still underrepresented.
Therefore, in order to remedy underrepresentation, affirmative action is necessary to give a boost to white Gentiles and reduce Jews to 2% of the law school populations.

The selection process for JILP is comprised of three criteria: writing sample, grades and personal statement. If a candidate doesn't hit a specific percentile for grades and writing sample, it doesn't matter how great the personal statement was or how many boxes were ticked, that candidate will not be extended an offer to the Journal. (At least that was the case when I was on JILP.)

The writing sample (which is heavily weighted) evaluates the quality of the candidates' legal arguments, writing style, grammar and bluebooking. The personal statement (which is not as heavily weighted) attempts to quantify certain qualities not captured by the writing sample or grades, such as interest in international law and affairs, foreign language capability and diversity of perspective.

In the end, "diversity" has a relatively low weight within the personal statement itself, and the personal statement is only one element of the selection criteria.

I second the comment about privacy (see 10:26 PM). Do people really want to discuss their sexual orientation in order to get a spot on a law journal?

Reading all these posts, a couple of things are clear. Being on a journal seems to matter primarily (if not solely) so that you can put it on your resume as a mark of distinction from other students - maybe it is time for law schools to rethink the whole journal system and whether it is worth keeping. The days of journals actually contributing something to the profession seem to be long gone. And law schools already give out grades to distinguish the better students.

Second, it seems that most people on journals (with the possible exception of law review) acknowledge that, although most probably don't do so consciously. As someone who has been working now for 6+ years, I can honestly say that my experience on a journal did absolutely nothing to help my legal career. Even learning how to check footnotes didn't help-many many firms have their own style (don't tell anyone that not everyone thinks the blue book is the bible).

On the lateral link thing, I'm pretty sure the woman didn't work for lateral link, but used them to find a job. And if you've ever paid attention to their adds, they always show people who went to top ten schools (regardless of race), that's their market.

Who cares? Its a secondary journal. If you aren't on the real journal, no one cares after you get your first job.

Luckily, I'm a gay African American from a disadvantaged background who is attracked to lesbian Latinos who speak Swahili. I was able to get on a journal without even going to law school.

UChicago journals don't award extra points for diversity during the selection process. But I guess UChicago isn't a "top 5" school anymore, since certain other inferior schools bought their way up the USNews rankings.

UChicago journals don't award extra points for diversity during the selection process. But I guess UChicago isn't a "top 5" school anymore, since certain other inferior schools bought their way up the USNews rankings.

NYU Law = Racists

This journal is no different from any other law journal at NYU or any other law school. The girl who wrote this doesn't even seem necessarily anti-AA. I think she's saying that NYU Law's student body is so richly diverse that this additional layer of racial classification in journal selection is simply unnecessary.

This comes only a few years after NYU Law considered createing an all-minority lounge. http://media.www.nyunews.com/media/storage/paper869/news/2006/02/17/NewscampusNews/Law-Students.Petition.For.A.Minority.Lounge-2397360.shtml

12:09, you would think that at least some minority students would know that separate but equal racial facilities started going out of fashion in the 1950s.

1. What would Martin Luther King say if he held up a similar form for a white men's club debiting a candidate for the same categories?

2. Does that form not indeed implicitly assume that all blacks, women, gays, etc think "alike"?

3. Do black gay refugees from Jamaica obtain preference over black straight US citizens?

4. Since the President of Harvard was booted for suggesting that women and men might have varying aptitudes for scientific study, why would is this faculty not out in force to boot this evaluation which assumes the same inherent differences?

5. I feel like an originator of the French revolution: the soul of the original idea ("non-discrimination"--NON--get it?) has been twisted by the Jacobins of the day: now we MUST discriminate not to discriminate. We MUST discriminate in favor of blacks, women, you name it--to be sure we don't discriminate against them.

Isn't this just insane?

It's great that this stuff is leeking out into the open. When I interviewed from NYU a few years ago, many judges and firms were under the mistaken impression that Law Review (and other journal) membership implied good grades. Most were surprised when I explained NYU Law Review's (then) policy of taking 1/3 of its members for having top grades, 1/3 for of its members for doing well on the writing competition, and 1/3 of its members for having a nice (read AA) personal statement. The more that people understand the journal selection process, the less journal membership will be worth - which is a good thing, considering it is relatively pointless. Judges and biglaw partners were also unaware of NYU Law Review's (then) policy that 50% of its articles must be written (headlined) by women.

Female is not worthy of diversity points! How far we've come.

24 > 18, so can this raise your overall score?

"Convincing expression of interest in International Law". Sounds like this is the question that asks, do you think s/he's a liar?

While the conservatives are rightfully incensed about the reverse discrimination going on here, let's also take a step back to question our assumptions.

The interesting thing about the 'diversity' section is that it provides absolutely no guidance as to what it means. It's easy and probably correct to assume that its discriminating in favor of the minority, but there is no reason to assume that from the document itself.

Suppose the scoring system is this:

"Racial Minority/Ethnic Heritage 6 - ____/6"

What if it is scored, 1 if you are black, 2 if you are Native American, 3 for asian, 4 for hispanics, 5 for slavs, and 6 for Anglo/Aryan whites?

"Sexual Orientation 6 - ____/6"

What if it is scored, 1 if you are openly gay/transgendered or otherwise engaged in perversion, 2 for closet gays, 3 for bisexuals, 4 for tramps, 5 for hetrosexuals in out of wedlock relationships, and 6 for monogamous married or celibate?

"Economic Hardship 6 - ____/6"

1 for being from the wrong side of the tracks? 6 if you went to the right fraternity?

"Other (i.e. disability, age, etc) 6 - ____/6"

1 for a disability, 4 if you need glasses, 5 if you appear healty, and 6 if you were on the university football squad?

Let's keep some perspective.

A few years ago I learned that I was really truly 1/64 Native American (Tuscarora).

My first thought was not 'what an interesting aspect of my heritage and history!' or even 'how can I get on a law journal' but... 'Can I open a casino?'

Food for thought: before taking this to a very public forum, have you attempted to question this policy within the journal or school community? Have you solicited input from your editors, faculty, or advisor? This does not seem very productive, indicative of an ability to keep confidences, or like an effective strategy for dealing with problems later on in the legal profession.

11:07 NYU is not racist. You are just throwing out accusations.

Is considering diversity right? I don't see anything wrong with it.
Is giving specific points out for subcategories right? I am on the fence about that. I would prefer if the Diversity category did not have subcategories. Instead it should have a short two-three sentences describing the aim of such category. Leave it up to the reviewer to decide how they will assign those eighteen points. Everyone is smart enough at a T-20 and up to understand the goal of law review and intent in having a diverse group on it.

As an EIC of a journal, the way the executive staff decided next year's staff was based on the following items: answers to five specific questions, a personal statement, and an interview. Some people bombed the interview, other bombed in their responses to our questions. We wanted a racially diverse group (that was a shared goal by all staff), that knew how to write, but that also had the ability to communicate. Racial diversity was a tie-breaker in our decisions.

5:51, does your journal have the right proportion of body size diversity? what about height diversity? 31% of Americans are obese, so you better have around a third of your group be fat.

Short people and fat people have unique life experiences in overcoming adversity that are not shared by tall and thin people. Like minorities, all short and fat people think alike and contribute to "diversity" just by their different physical appearance. Merely talking to them about their opinions is not enough, and we must also select people based on their physical differences.

The only time race should be taken into account is when race is a bona fide qualification, such as if you are casting a black character.

Martin Luther King dreamed that one day we will live in a nation where people will not be judged by the color of their skin. Why do you hate Martin Luther King and equal civil rights?

6:04, mock my general description as much as you want, it still does not make your point any more valid.

I provided you with description of how we made decisions, and what we thought of as important. If you don't like it, get on a journal and change it. The only dissent in our journal's method was when some cavalier liberals were disgruntled that the diversity category allowed for a high number of conservatives who were not strong writers to be admitted.

In terms of your use of Martin Luther King's speech on judging by character not skin color. His speech and subsequent writings spoke to having equality as a baseline which would then make the use of color unnecessary--we are not there yet and stop saying that I hate MLK and "equal civil rights" because you don't have a grasp of it in the first place.

Stick to the point of the blog post--the journal's use of categories.

6:21, so if I see race-based discrimination in a journal, I should just get on the journal and change it? Maybe Brown and the other black families should have just gotten on the Topeka Board of Education and changed the discriminatory enrollment policies from the inside, instead of making outside challenges and invalid points.

If minority law students at elite law schools potentially making six-digit salaries don't live in a world where equality is the baseline and color-judgments have become unnecessary, then you should develop a greater awareness of how privileged their positions are.

And recognize that my whole post was about how journals using arbitrary categories of physical traits for "diversity" purposes is ridiculous and discriminatory. I'm sorry you don't have a grasp of that concept in the first place.

I can see this law journal going the way of the Harvard Law Review. When you accept/hire people based on "diversity" and not "ability", you get a worse-quality product. Period.

Interesting discussion. Work hard, study, get an education and loose a job because someone else has a better skin color. I'll bet Republicans don't make 38% of their workforce, either.

"The person noted that the rubric is always controversial, but said diversity in background is an important factor as a proxy for diversity in opinion."

How utterly freaking absurd!

Unless by "diversity in opinion" they simply mean "likely to be reliably leftist in outlook."

7:19, my reference to sticking to the blog post is to KH's entry, not your diatribe. I have more than a general grasp of where you want the discussion to go --> arbitrary decisions-->reverse racism-->MLK said we should not judge by color-->it is a result of affirmative action and liberals-->that is why journals are shitty nowadays, etc.

You should get on a journal and change it if you care so much. This is completely different from what happened to the Brown v. Board families. You are the one that cannot accept that distinction. Even though you attend a TTT, you have to admit that you are privileged enough to understand how to focus your argument logically without having to bring in outside issues.

8:19, actually the Harvard Law Review use of the diversity statement for staff selection in 2004 and 2005 resulted in a high number of conservatives getting on according to past editors before my time.

I did not believe it at first, but several have confirmed it. The racially diverse students who were on, tended to have higher than average scores, thus not needing the consideration of the diversity statement. Go fig.

why are we wasting our time on this?

Well, 11:02, some of us were taught that racism is wrong and that we should speak out against it when we encounter it. The insipid attempts here to justify the racism that is inherent in this rubric compound the awfulness of the practice as it stands.

If you aren't bothered by racism and its apologists, take care.

No points for being a veteran?

Never mind, this is NYU. Dumb question.

Unless the journal wants its editor photo page to be almost entirely white, it needs to give people points for racial diversity. If minority 2L's are forced to compete with non-minority 2L's on a level playing field, the minority 2L's will not do as well on average.

This is a simple fact for ANY competition where one group is given preferential treatment on a non-material criterion (in this case, race). Pretend the NBA decided that half of its players must be left-handed. Are lefties any worse than righties? No. But if the NBA instituted such a rule, the lefties IN THE LEAGUE would be worse on average than the righties, because they added lefties to the league that wouldn't otherwise make it.

Same thing here. Minority students at NYU will need added points to compete with the non-minority students who made it to NYU under tougher standards.

I'm not saying which way the journal should go. I'm just saying, this is a

[continued from previous post]

fact of life that both sides of the debate need to accept.

A journal of international law may as well be the journal of unicorns and hobbits - based on entirely fictional ideas, so who cares how racist they make their selection criteria?

SIlly question:

What scores points for diversity of "sexual orientation"?

Does a cross-dressing she-male who struts around in high heels and fishnet stockings get more points than a lipstick lesbian?

How many points for sadomasochism with a Nazi fetish, like Formula I chief Max Mosley (vide the British tabloids)?

Would there be points for necrophilia? Bestiality? Bukkake? Being a working or former prostitute? What about "swingers"?

Diversity surely doesn't stop with "gay", not when there are GLBTQIBDSM people out there.

If a journal wants to have diversity of opinion, they can, oh I don't know, ask about the actual opinions of the applicants. Using race as a "proxy" for diversity of opinion is pretty retarded when it's not like the journal is restricted about finding out about opinions.

Let's say that a journal has nine white liberal Democrats, and they have to decide between a white conservative and a black liberal. Obviously, the white conservative will provide much more diversity of opinion than the black liberal (who will cause the group to remain all liberal).
But who will the journal pick? Let's not kid ourselves here.

11:04 - you're not considering everything that a real-life board would consider. What about the unique experiences that the black applicant has as a result of growing up black? What about the fact that having black journal members might encourage black students to apply to the journal the following year? These are just a few of the many reasons that business owners, journal heads and other leaders of organizations prefer a racially diverse group.