New Diversity Rankings
Today, the Minority Law Journal published its new Diversity Rankings. There was a big change in the publication’s methodology, and that resulted in significant upheaval in the rankings:
All this churn comes courtesy of a new ranking formula adopted after we found ourselves wondering whether our traditional approach to measuring diversity—calculating the overall percentage of minorities within a firm—ignored something significant. Did it really make sense to treat all lawyers of color as essentially equivalent in stature? Should a firm get the same kind of credit for a minority associate as it does for a minority partner? We decided that it was time to start giving more credit to firms that have increased the racial diversity of their partnership ranks. Under our revised formula, we add each responding firm’s percentage of minority lawyers to its percentage of minority partners to come up with a diversity score. This number is a truer gauge, we believe, of what kind of progress a firm is making in hiring lawyers of color at every level, with an emphasis on those at the most senior levels. (Click here for a fuller explanation of our methodology, and a list of firms that did not respond.)
The change knocked Cleary Gottlieb off its long standing perch in the top spot. In its place, Wilson Sonsini claims number one status.
After the jump, additional details from well known firms.
The new methodology hurt a lot of firms that have a lot of minorities in the pipeline, but few in the partnership:
Among those who scored poorly on the new survey, Cravath’s example is illuminating. Cravath has a very high percentage of minority lawyers overall—21.3 percent, nearly twice the survey average. On the other hand, only 2.3 percent of Cravath partners are attorneys of color—a relatively low proportion that hurt the firm’s diversity score. Other firms pushed out of the top tier include Simpson Thacher & Bartlett (from number 11 to number 35); Debevoise & Plimpton (from number 14 to number 37); Weil, Gotshal & Manges (from number 16 to number 23); and Latham & Watkins (from number 17 to number 26). Simpson Thacher and Debevoise reported below-average minority partner rates; Weil’s and Latham’s rates were a bit better than average, but not quite good enough for the firms to keep their old rankings.
The publication’s list is based on numbers firms self reported by September 30, 2008. But I wonder if the diversity battlefield has shifted significantly since September. While it does seem critically important to see if firms are making minority partners, right now it seems even more important to know which firms are firing minority attorneys in disproportionate numbers.
What explains the slowing pace of overall minority representation? Answering a question about the obstacles they face in improving diversity, many firms cited a perennial problem: a shallow pool of minority candidates from which to choose when hiring associates. Economic conditions also appear to be a factor. In response to the same question, some 30 firms explicitly cited economic woes as hampering diversity efforts even before the full force of the current financial crisis hit. “The biggest challenge to building diversity in the past year was the economic downturn,” said O’Melveny & Myers (tied for number 20). “The state of the economy has made us ever more mindful of the need to control expenses and ensure that the internal programs we develop and facilitate, as well as the external programs we sponsor, are the best use of our resources.” Translation: In tight times, the bottom line is always top of mind, and a firm’s push toward greater diversity isn’t exempt from that calculus. Financial concerns can hurt diversity initiatives in several ways. Layoffs and reduced hiring may mean fewer associates of color, and as several firms said in their responses, pressure to increase billable hours can detract from mentoring and recruiting efforts.
Crying poverty when it comes to diversity programs and initiatives is nothing new, but that could be the underlying weakness with such programs and initiatives. The vast majority of minority attorneys that I’ve met don’t really want or need a special-awesome outreach luncheon. Instead, fair treatment and a respectful working environment would suffice. That doesn’t cost money. It does (in some places) cost a fairly massive change in firm culture.
As we’ve chronicled before, in these difficult times the power balance is squarely in the hands of partners. It’s hard to inspire associates (of color or otherwise) to collective action when people are desperate to find a job and keep a job. Law firms are struggling and in this environment “green” is probably the only color anyone really cares about.
Diversity Scorecard - 2009 [Minority Law Journal]
2009 Diversity Scorecard [Minority Law Journal]
Earlier: Building a Better Legal Profession Students Still Dream of Power




Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
A poem I wrote for all laid off Lathamites. Don't get down. The world is your oyster and you'll come out of this for the better.
-------------------------------
Standing Tall
By LL
Sometimes the world looks perfect: Nothing to rearrange.
Sometimes you get a feeling like you need some kind of change.
No matter what the odds are this time, nothing’s going to stand in my way.
This flame in my heart, and a long lost friend.
Gives every dark street a light at the end.
Standing tall, on the wings of my dream.
Rise and fall, on the wings of my dream.
The rain and thunder. The wind and haze.
I’m bound for better days. It’s my life and my dream,
Nothing’s going to stop me now.
really? this is what people waste their time with? "diversity rankings"
lol
sigh
So, my firm wasn't even listed. What does that mean?
Maybe if we stopped making such a big deal about "minorities," Race would no longer be an issue in this country?
As long as minorities continue to make their color a major public issue, we will never make progress.
Nuff said (and this is coming from someone born in India)
-Tarbosh
as a white male republican , I think this change in methodology is a great move. It's a joke to talk about diversity at law firms and then look at the partnership and see nothing but white men. Special programs to squeeze minority students into the associate and summer associate ranks are insulting to everyone. Law firm partnerships seem to be the last group to have not realized they need to have a diversity of backgrounds and viewpoints to adequately represent their clients. I'm especially pleased to see the public shaming of firms that were filling their lower ranks with minorities and failing to train and promote them into the partnership.
On a different note, why is the stupid grapes ad back? You do realize that all it does is make me resize my window so the entire advertising block of ATL is cut off so I don't have a seizure, right?
Who gives a flying fuck about diversity rankings, especially now? Earn your place, like everyone else.
And Tarboosh, nobody cares about Indians - Indians (along with other Asians and Jews) can help themselves. Diversity is a code word that applies only to groups whose members need handouts to succeed in proportionate numbers.
Latham Truth # 6:
Latham threw away millions at diversity events, even when they were cutting down on everything else. They even have a black partner who does not do anything but diversity stuff. Regardless, when it came to firing, bunch of minorities were shown the door. Most believe that race and gender were taken into consideration when such layoff list was being prepared.
Share your truths.
yawn. in this economy i couldn't give a flying fuck who i work for.
I'm glad we can decide which firm to hire / work for based upon how they look in a catalogue. I would totally use race and gender to determine who to pick as my heart surgeon. Same with an airline pilot. Oh, and my florist!
Diversity=/=Excellence
Excellence > Diversity
Diversity = Giant Crock of Shit
"Regardless, when it came to firing, bunch of minorities were shown the door."
Not surprising that the AA hires were the ones bunched at the bottom.
The ATL editorial staff is 88% black (by weight).
Electing Barack Obama President of the United States is the ultimate diversity "score."
"We didn't get our forty acres and a mule, but we did get you, CC."
Diversity = racism.
QUINN REMAINS off this list!
So...this article wants is affirmative action in:
(1) colleges;
(2) law schools that select from those colleges;
(3) associate hiring that selects from those law schools; and
(4) partnership promotion that selects from those associates.
Isn't this getting a little out of hand? What, exactly, does a firm truly gain by such persistent "person-of-color" favortism?
"Instead, fair treatment and a respectful working environment would suffice."
Oh, cry me a river, you fat bitch. Minorities already have a substantially easier time getting these jobs, and nobody in a firm would dream of doing anything whatsoever that might be interpreted as demonstrating insufficient commitment to Diversity.
13, Asians are hurt by AA, not the other way around.
Latham Truth #7: I was fired because I was annoying, but luckily, it happened during the layoff season, and so it looks like I'm unemployed for reasons other than my own annoyingness.
Also, when I'm trying to make Latham look bad but somehow can't find substantive reasons (although they abound), I use wiggle words and slippery phrases. For example, "Most believe"..."taken into consideration"..."bunch of minorities."
Obviously, when I say truth, I mean opinion.
Amen, 10.
Being black (and a GULC alum) makes me feel secure in knowing that I am untouchable when the next round of layoffs occur at my firm.
I can't believe they spent all this money issuing a report on an old, old wooden ship.
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
- John Roberts (but he is white, Republican and therefore a racist - right?)
Being black (and a GULC alum) makes me feel secure in knowing that I am untouchable when the next round of layoffs occur at my firm.
I think diversity in the firms is a great thing (when measuring diversity by more than just the color of one's skin--also taking into account gender, sex, socioeconomic, and cultural differences). But I took a quick glance at these "diversity rankings" and I disagree with their methodology. It seems that diversity on a national level is lacking--many of these firms have "diversity offices" where I'd guess a significant percentage of their diverse attorneys work. Miami and Texas come to mind. The rankings tend to disproportionately rank these firms near the top, when what the rankings really do is indicate the geography of office locations rather than inter-office diversity. For me, diversity could mean having a significant percentage of black or hispanic associates in Charlotte, Atlanta, or DC, rather relying on one office to bump you up the national rankings.
I'm really not sure how an empirical ranking could measure this efficiently, but I'd love to see them try.
I'd also like to see more weight put on senior associates and partners rather than junior associates. Sorry for the long post, just my .02.
Why is "'green'" in quotation marks??
26, Yolanda Young is that you?
Changing employment status we can believe in.
I think that retention rates should be considered as well.
By this ranking's methodology, a firm that is 100% black would be the most racially "diverse" firm in the country.
Liberals, I don't think "diverse" means what you think it means.
Here's a link to survey results organized by ranking: http://www.law.com/jsp/mlj/PubArticleMLJ.jsp?id=1202430385742
And here's the two summary lists. (There are others lists that get more specific by category, and feature other firms.)
MOST DIVERSE
Top Firms Score*
Wilson Sonsini 43.5
Townsend and Townsend 39.0
Curtis, Mallet 38.8
Lewis, Brisbois 38.4
Knobbe, Martens 37.3
Munger, Tolles 36.6
Fenwick & West 35.9
Paul, Weiss 35.3
White & Case 33.9
Milbank, Tweed 33.6
Highest Percentage of Minority
Attorneys (Partners and Nonpartners)
Lewis, Brisbois 26.3%
Fenwick & West 26.1%
Wilson Sonsini 25.5%
Paul, Weiss 25.0%
Milbank, Tweed 23.8%
Morrison & Foerster 23.4%
Orrick 23.1%
Knobbe, Martens 22.4%
Simpson Thacher 22.4%
Davis Polk 22.2%
Townsend and Townsend 22.2%
Wow, 21. I truly believe you are Latham PR.
LATHAM IS SO PATHETIC AS TO HIRE A FULL TIME PR PERSON TO GO ON ATL AND CONFUSE PEOPLE.
So under the methodology used by these idiots, a law firm that employed blacks exclusively would be most diverse? Some people truly are more diverse than others. WTF.
One of the three partners elected by Cravath in the last round was a minority (Asian male), which isn't reflected in this scorecard.
I missed the special interview sessions at my school for white, catholic men who grew up in working class families. They can add an element of diversity to law firms too. Come to think of it, I missed those meetings when I applied to college and law school too. Stupid me- i had to rely on taking the sat/lsat and graduating summa to get my job.
Latham Truth #9:
They love my nuts!
1 and 21 is the same person. LATHAM IS MORE PATHETIC THEN THEIR FIRED FIRST YEARS.
31 - you beat me to it.
34
Looks, we all know when we talk about diversity it only takes into account blacks. It makes me sick the sense of entitlement among the AA community in this country.
I missed the special interview sessions at my school for white, catholic men who grew up in working class families. They can add an element of diversity to law firms too. Come to think of it, I missed those meetings when I applied to college and law school too. Stupid me- i had to rely on taking the sat/lsat and graduating summa to get my job.
35, as has been pointed out, Asians don't count as minorities because they know hot to help themselves, as do Jews and Catholics, also minorities.
It's amazing to see racism (a/k/a so-called diversity) not just tolerated but celebrated in this day and age. Sad for our country.
This is post is really fucked up. Really, let's be honest - we have much bigger problems in our profession and in BigLaw right now than this made up bs. It will never be enough for some -- like jesse jackson and al sharpton, will never be satisfied, until their racial group has all the power, whether or not every major city is controlled by their racial group, whether we have a president out of their group, it will never be enough. The only real discrimination and racial tensions, in today's US society, is that fomented by the above and their ilk. Such f* bs
I went to college with a Cherokee kid who got into a T3 with an 159. True story.
K&L Gates had the first Chief Diversity Officer in the nation and it is not even listed. What does that say????
Elie, you put up a picture of the cover of the Movie "Minority Report" to signify diversity rankings? I hate you and think you're officially retarded with this uncreative attempt at humor.
Latham Truth # 7
Minorities on Latham's Diversity Committee or whatever it was called got to go to free dinners, events and even broadway shows because they were minorities while others were not invited under the guise of recruiting other minorities. They even had a few thousand dollar wine tasting event right before bunch of us got laid off.
Latham Truth #10:
Perhaps I am a law student procrastinating rather than studying, and not a partner at Latham. Perhaps I am reading the comments for entertainment value, and you consistently disappoint (you disgruntled ex-Lathamite, you). Perhaps I enjoy responding and then watching you turn red-faced (and purple-worded), as it were.
Or perhaps I am a Latham PR person passionately defending my firm on ATL, the website on which Latham's future hinges. (And if so, perhaps my salary exists because yours no longer does.)
Elie -
With all due respect, what type of "fairly massive change in firm culture" do minority students/attorneys want? Are there large firms out there that are actively discriminating against minorities? In my 8 years in BigLaw, I can honestly say I've never seen it. But I repeatedly see reverse discrimination when it comes to hiring and most recently with respect to layoffs. I'm convinced that 99.9% of partners/law firms see only one color: green.
(As an aside, count me as one of the folks reading this blog that enjoy your sense of humor and couldn't care less about a few stupid typos.)
i downloaded the adblock add-on for firefox... it RULES
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1865
no more dealbreaker ad
laughing at all the AA haters - -
you know there is one way to make sure you are never denied what is rightfully yours, perform better.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
ze longer you verk here, diverse it gets!
Question:
For diversity purposes, is there a difference between hiring an African-American born in the USA, and an African-American born in Africa? (both have US citizenship)
The only prejudice law firms display is against those who do not make them money. If it so happens the majority of those who cannot develop business are minorities...then they are let go. If a "minority" (and by that I mean black) is making the firm money, he will be promoted.
-It is quite simple to understand...the only color firms care about is "green"
52, why couldn't the blacks and Hispanics simply "perform better" instead of getting a 8-12-point deemed boost in their LSAT score because people who looked like them were mistreated decades ago?
It's like more adding more white people in the NBA, the profession just wouldn't be as good. :)
John Robert's is right that the correct way to stop discriminating on race is to stop discriminating on race. So I guess I should bid at OCI on the firms that don't discriminate. But how will I know who does that? They all have EEOC statements on their websites and fluffy language on NALP. I mean, a firm would never lie about those things, right?
As for this survey saying anything, quit being so scared! There are firms who are likely not on here by choice. Do they hate diversity? No. They just choose not to consider it. Like any other metric, this has it's pluses and minuses. Take the data, make your own decision.
54 -
There is not, and this has been criticized. To the extent that "diversity" policies are in place to redress wrongs committed against past generations of American blacks, it does not really make sense to hire kids from Lagos (except of course that those kids are usually smarter and more hard-working, and embarrassed profoundly of their entitled US counterparts).
also, Flashblock
<150 gets yolandas into hls
I was born / raised in Russia. But yet my background doesn't add to my BigLaw NYC firm's diversity, while my friend who looks pretty much just like me but has a Spanish last name and is ticking the Hispanic box does, despite being born/raised on Long Island.
What a racket. I would take a pay cut to work at a firm that says on their career page "We believe in a culture of merit. Full stop."
24: LOL
58, Did the AA orientation program at GULC not teach you how to use apostrophes?
Elie, you owe your life the AA
IT'S ANCHORMAN NOT ANCHORLADY!!!
The only diversity i care about, is diversity of VAGINA. In that context, diversity is a great thing. Cheers...
Elie, you owe your life the AA
Elie, you owe your life the AA
Elie, you owe your life the AA
62 - fuck you dirty russian drunk. How are you diverse? The other white meat?
Your Hispanic friend
I think there is a profound disconnect between the reality of hiring and how minorities pereive it, as 58's comment illustrates. Do blacks really still think that their skin color is a DISadvantage when it comes to hiring? You are worried about being discriminated against? Count your fucking blessings.
Да, черножопые здесь конечно совсем озверели. Учиться не могут, работать тоже - но почему-то считают что имеют право на работы и зарплату, а левые у них на поводке как идиоты.
45, I know a Black woman who got into a Seven Sisters college with 1450 on her SATs and into GULC with a 170. True story....
Oh wait, that was me! Suck it, bitches!!!!
Diversity rankings are for queers.
YOU ARE ALL IDIOTS
Skadden Secure
ps - YOU ARE ALL IDIOTS!
@52- my next door neighbor growing up was black. Our fathers worked together. We went to the same elementary and highs chools. I was an honor student, he wasn't. I had very strong sat scores, he did not. Guess which one of us ended up at the better college? Fast forward four years. I'm at the top of my class in college, he's in the middle of his. We take the lsat at the same time. I do very well, he does ok. Guess who gets special treatment again, despite less impressive credentials? Guess who gets to go to the special interviews at law school with firms that wouldn't bother to send me a rejection letter with his grades? I'm not saying what an AA undergrad/lawstudent/associate has is mine, but don't tell me the reason he got to where he is is that he's "done better." Fortunately, in an environment like this, being competent now trumps being "nice."
It's clearly not enough to just give little affirmative action boosts for college, grad school, employment, and partnership. America, the one nation based on a melting pot theory, is somehow so inherently racist that an affirmative action bonus must be applied in all situations. For example, there is a minority behind you in line at the deli. Did you know that if not for the intervention of racist traffic patterns, that person would have been in line before you? Now you do, so please give them your spot. Same goes for parking spots and subway seats. Hey, we're all trying to fairly live our lives, right? That involves sacrifices, particularly if you are a honky discriminating against other people by your very presence. After all, everyone would be one spot ahead in line if you weren't even there.
Another crushing injustice is the layout of supermarket aisles. What an amazing coincidence that generic "white bread" takes up half an aisle on the front end near the registers, so people who don't subscribe your racist white male 1950s view of American eating habits have to walk another 15 feet to get the bread they want. That is time and energy wasted, costs that must be recouped by a new Obama Minority Pedestrian Reparation Tax on any white people making more than $100,000 a year. We're all in this together, so pay up.
And don't get me started on racist ski lifts. Those fuckers are a class action waiting to happen.
Burdog. That is all.
Well played, Gargle...well played.
So the "diversity report" doesn't include LGBT? How inclusive and progressive.
50, you are a racist for criticizing Elie's typos. Affirmative action beneficiaries are entitled to two spelling mistakes per sentence. It's the least society could do since 150 years ago people who looked like them were enslaved by people who looked like those in power today (whites and black Africans, just like the President).
In Soviet Russia diversity ranks you... repeatedly, in da assgulag.
I have often wondered why only ethnicity/skin color/certain sexual preferences counts for diversity purposes, while those who are immigrants - unless asian/black/hispanic/glbt - don't count in any of the diversity 'buckets.'
I know of many law firms with large numbers of first generation immigrant attorneys or wgose parents were immigrants - who count for zero for diversity purposes - while a tenth generation Mexican American in Texas or California who looks, sounds and acts more WASPy than the immigrant, or a third generation Asian American, counts.
Practical example: why should the first generation Russian or Ukranian attorney, who came to New York at age 10, not 'count' while his or her office mate who is a third generation American citizen of Chinese descent be incluided for diversity calculation?
What's up with that? Only certain types of 'diversity' are reflected. Diversity is a shell game used by law firms to satisfy the needs of their corporate client's general counsel who seek 'diversity' in the ranks of the firms they engage. If I had been seeking criminal counsel 15 years ago, I might have hired the late Johnny Cochrane - not because The Cichrane Law Firm was diverse, but because Mr. Cochrane and his team were effective counsel.
64, did the grammar orientation at your preschool neglect to explain the proper usage of commas and capitalization? I'm sorry - I mean the little curvy line and the BIG LETTERS.
Thank god for diversity at my law school. I've been greatly enriched by the ideas I've heard while holding a glass between my ear and the closed BLSA lounge door with the window covered by poster board. I also enjoy going to the BLSA meetings, where I'm expected to be seen and not heard, and anything I say gets an answer prefaced with "you're white, you wouldn't understand." I'm glad that we have Critical Race Theory classes that exist solely to drill into my head that white people suck in as many different ways as a scholar can imagine.
So many ideas . . . such a richer experience they have given me. Thank you, diversity!
80 - The report was prepered FUBU. And, as you know, black people don't like gays.
Keller Kross and Kent missed the list again?
64, did the grammar orientation at your preschool neglect to explain the proper usage of commas and capitalization? I'm sorry - I mean the little curvy line and the BIG LETTERS.
80 - Yes, it does. In addition to race, it includes LGTB lawyers, as well as disabled lawyers:
OTHER MEASURES OF DIVERSITY
Top Firms: Gay/Lesbian Lawyers
Highest Percentage
Irell & Manella 8.4%
Patterson Belknap 7.3%
Goulston & Storrs 6.3%
Jenner & Block 5.9%
Debevoise & Plimpton 5.4%
Highest Number
Latham & Watkins 55
Skadden 49
Dewey & LeBoeuf 41
Sidley Austin 39
Ropes & Gray 33
Top Firms: Disabled Lawyers
Highest Percentage
Curtis, Mallet 2.0%
Baker Botts 1.3%
Sheppard, Mullin 1.3%
Sonnenschein 1.2%
Harris Beach 1.1%
Herrick, Feinstein 1.1%
Stoel Rives 1.1%
Highest Number
Baker Botts 10
Sonnenschein 8
K&L Gates 7
Sheppard, Mullin 7
Wilmer 6
I'm an AA bennie. I look white but I'm 25% native american. All that matters to employers and law school is my race on paper. Unfortunately, you can't opt out of AA since being white actually counts against you (or marking bi-racial) so if I don't check the native american box, I get screwed (happened to me in college when my 1400 SAT, 4.2 GPA and editor-in-chief of the school paper couldn't get my sorry white-indian ass into Berkeley, but a bunch of black kids w/ 900s got in just fine that year).
Comment removed by moderator.
84:
I don't agree with 64's tone, but I don't see a grammatical mistake there? Care to point it out?
85: AMEN
We have a gay black guy with only one leg working in our mail room. His name Djibouti and he is actually very nice.
CWT 05
85: AMEN
@81- for all those generations when people I don't know exploited people aa beneficiaries don't know, my ancestors were working as serfs in Europe. In fact, they didn't even show up here until decades after slavery ended, barely spoke the language, and had to work like crazy just to make a modest living. My parents were the first people in their families to go to college. But hey, I'm white so it's been easy for me. I just called old chip from the country club and he got me into my school.
90 - calling bullshit.
My decidedly not-racist comment just got deleted. Touchy subject, I guess.
I was merely suggesting that now is a pretty good time to be a minority law school or big law applicant. Even if your parents are doctors, lawyers, or engineers and you went to private high school etc., your skin color is a big plus in your column. There's no denying that. I'm not saying it's good or bad, it just is. Don't get all up in arms because I'm calling you out on not being as oppressed as you claim to be.
What with ObamaGod being in the White House, I would think that minorities (Black, African American, Afro American, Negro, Colored) would stop counting heads. I guess not.
Is it racist to ask an African American if has an extra basketball I can play with?
@81- for all those generations when people I don't know exploited people aa beneficiaries don't know, my ancestors were working as serfs in Europe. In fact, they didn't even show up here until decades after slavery ended, barely spoke the language, and had to work like crazy just to make a modest living. My parents were the first people in their families to go to college. But hey, I'm white so it's been easy for me. I just called old chip from the country club and he got me into my school.
90 here: Truth.
27 is on the right track. These would be more accurately called the "skin-diversity" rankings. Why call these "diversity" rankings when all they measure is the amount of non-white colored lawyers at the firm? True diversity means a lot more than just hiring some double Ivy League African-American with two doctors for parents. Not to mention, the more interracial relationships we see, the more skin color becomes only a rough proxy for culture/socio-economics, etc. But the more we focus on superficial issues of skin color the less we have to focus on the real divides in this country and the more we can pat ourselves on the back.
P.S. Why does diversity mean that you can hire blacks but ignore that you have no hispanic lawyers despite the fact that they are the largest racial minority group in the country?!
If you are interested in diversity, stay away from BLANK ROME. Some partners openly ridicule gay lawyers and employees with disabilities.
Basing affirmative action on race rather than economic status defeats the purpose. Rich minorities with access to test preparation courses and private tutors are the primary beneficiaries of current law school AA policies. This is counter intuitive because these individuals generally have more advantages than someone of a lower economic stature--regardless of race. I could not afford an LSAT class or tutor, but I still did very well. If I had been able to check a box, I would be at HYS right now instead of a T20. Reward should be based on merit, not race or economic status. But if you must have AA, at least adopt a form which could possibly accomplish the stated policy goals.
104 - Nobody is actually interested in diversity. There are minorities who are interested in preferential treatment and whites interest in appearing progressive to their clients. Diversity is just a good unifying buzzword.
"Basing affirmative action on race rather than economic status defeats the purpose."
That depends on what the purpose is. For most schools and employers, the purpose is just to sprinkle some black faces into the diversity brochure. For that, a son of a surgeon will do as well as a son of a welder.
I am interested in doing the best legal work I can, with the best lawyers. Does this mean I should avoid places like Cravath, that hire a lot of minorities who can't hack it and end up quitting? Or should I avoid places like OMM, which openly admit that their minority hiring policies cost money and clients?
Is there a way to be concerned with the quality of the legal work AND "diversity?" Because if "diversity" means "diversity of amounts of effort put into memoranda," I'm going to steer clear of firms like these.
56/76 - anytime you leave doubt in the equation, you set yourself up for failure. The amount of AA admits in any facet of your life is probably so small that it is statistically insignificant.
My point is: instead of worrying about how YOU are being screwed by AA, make sure someone else gets screwed by improving yourself.
And that's my "succeed at life" tip for you.
Not surprised by any of the comments in this thread against diversity. I especially love the ones prefaced by the comment "my family was white and poor and came here after slavery, blah, blah, blah," as if discrimination magically ended in 1865, 1954, or 1965. I have some relatives who might beg to differ.
Not surprised by any of the comments in this thread against diversity. I especially love the ones prefaced by the comment "my family was white and poor and came here after slavery, blah, blah, blah," as if discrimination magically ended in 1865, 1954, or 1965. I have some relatives who might beg to differ.
100, I'm not sure. That's a good question. Here's another: Is it racist to ask a White guy if he has a tiny penis I can play with?
110: Discrimination is a fact of life, and didn't magically end in 1865, true. Let's acknowledge that racism is part of the human condition, and that there are many qualified whites who have similarly been passed over due to race considerations. To deny this is simply to reveal self-interest masquerading as righteous anger.
104 - What is wrong with that? That sounds like a positive attribute to me.
THEY CALL ME, MR TIBBS!
Mr. Poitier
Color blindness is the only way to equality. "Not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Don't discriminate against any race, including white people!
110 -
You are an individual. You are not a group of people. Biological organisms do not share identity. Each has his and her own. To redress discrimination against a particular individual, a benefit may properly be bestowed upon that individual by the party responsible.
That your family members were discriminated against - even if they are presently victims of discrimination, which I highly doubt - entitles YOU to precisely shit.
I can't wait for the AA rug to be pulled out from entitled pieces of shit like you. And have no doubt - it will happen in your lifetime.
There is one thing that no one dares mention here. The very real possibility that .....
104: Doesn't Blank Rome have Geraldine Ferraro as a partner? The first female candidate for VP on a major party ticket? So are you telling me that things are more complicated than simple "diversity scores" and maybe we ought to ignore them? Because if so, I would agree. "Diversity" isn't just the NUMBERS of minorities you have--- it's getting the RIGHT minorities (and make sure they toe the ideological line). Women are so 90s.
113-
hear, hear
If I was black, I would not be in favor of AA.
I would not want people guessing if I had earned it, or was simply there because of diversity reasons.
The funny think is that Elie is sitting back reading these comments right now, thinking how people just don't know what it is like to be a minority and how great AA is. Thinking how racist you are if you are against our American Racist Program.
Well, Elie, you don't know what it is like to be a kid from a piece of shit poor white trash family whose parents were more interested in drugs than food. Where the hell was my affirmative action?
Honestly, we should start AA based on socioeconomic class, not skin color. It is absolutely a ridiculous and entitled to argue otherwise.
Not to pile on 110, but why does the existence of discrimination against one group or another, entitle specific persons, who show no proof that they were discriminated against, to advantages over others, who themselves are accused of no discriminatory acts?
Jackie Chiles is feeling disgusted, revolted, apoplectic, at witnessing all of the racism and bigotry on this site.
Jackie Chiles
Milbank laid off a bunch first years and ATL reports that a "tipster" said no first years were laid off?? What kind if reporting is this?
Hey remember that one time, in New Haven, when that dyslexic firefighter worked his ass off and didn't get his mandatory promotion because not enough minorities passed the test?
Yeah, that must have sucked.
I see from the comments that 95% of ATL readers hate "diversity" and AA. I also see that a lot of the anger regarding AA is directed at Blacks. I'm wondering if we should be angry at the law schools and law firms that hire underperforming blacks or if we should be angry at Blacks for accepting the positions at these institutions.
I go to a T10. Didn't score high enough to get Yale. But if Yale would have accepted me, would I have turned it down because it means taking some poor person's spot that did score high enough on the LSAT? I don't think so. I don't blame blacks for taking advantage of "white guilt". We should be angry at law schools and law firms.
125 - But as the City explained, the decision was race-neutral, which means that the test was tossed only after they realized that all of the blacks failed it. See, that's what "race-neutral" means now. I hope you like that.
109--
Black people are probably the most racist group of people in America. Honestly. As proven by these posts.
This whole argument that, "Well, if you don't like AA, just make sure you are not a victim of it by working really hard to ensure you get a job."
If you don't see the pathetic racist irony in your argument, you definitely don't deserve whatever job or law school you are in.
126 -
Some caveats. Yes, people should take advantage of existing opportunities, even when they are opposed in principle to the existence of such opportunities. I'm not angry toward blacks who take advantage of AA. I am angry toward the ones who believe they deserve the benefits of AA.
Quick Question:
Why is all the hatred and blame aimed at our minority classmates and colleagues?
Wasn't AA created by white legislators? Weren't the Supreme Court justices who upheld AA policies white? If you were a minority, would you really not check the box?
I understand the frustration as a white guy - but all these comments are pretty disgraceful. Don't blame these people for a policy they did not create. Don't blame them for a policy they couldn't change if they tried.
126-
I don't see any hatred at "blacks." I see the word "black" used by defenders of AA. I see "slavery" used by defenders of AA to explain why members of other races should get preferential treatment.
People shouldn't be "angry" at law firms--- law firms are only supporting the policies of the racist hustlers in power. I don't see any anger, or any anti-black sentiment. I see principled opposition to political favoritism.
Disadvantaged youth comes in all skin colors.
By leveling the playing field for some, and not others, you are committing an act of racism.
By arguing for AA, you are saying that racism is fine as long as there is an appropriate justification.
If I were black I would not be in favor of AA. -- Clarence Thomas
130 - Agreed. It's also pretty clear after reviewing the "Minority Report Card" that it isn't minority partners who are pushing these diversity programs - it's old white guys. So shouldn't the hate be aimed at, uh, the old white guys?
Price Is Right is a racist Affirmative Action game show.
I am watching right now and 2/3 second round finalists are black.
I'm hispanic and in favor of socio-economic diversity over race-based AA.
I was born and raised in the US, and both of my parents have graduate degrees from prestigious universities. I worked part-time in high school and college, by choice, for pocket money.
My friend, whose parents never got above the sixth grade, came to the US from Mexico when she was 6, had to learn English from scratch, by herself, and literally picked fruit in fields to help support her family during school breaks until she was in junior high.
And we count the same for AA purposes? RIDICULOUS.
She overcame way more than I did. Her going to college was a major achievement.
If I DIDN'T go to college, it would have been because I f*d up somewhere along the way.
And yeah, I recognize that there is race-based discrimination in the world and that such discrimination creates hurdles in life. So let's take that into account -- but let's do it as a factor in SOCIO-economic status.
Otherwise people like me are getting free handouts we don't need.
And yet we can't decline them, either -- especially hispanics. (Anyone else notice the fact that "hispanic" now requires exclusion of all other races? E.g. "black (non-hispanic)" and "white (non-hispanic)" I can't even choose to opt out!)
128: 109 here. Where did I claim not to be racist? Although I am not racist, as that term connotes a power to oppress, which I definitely do not possess. Anyway, I provided you with a life tip. You can make all the normative arguments you want, but at the end of the day, if you want to ensure you're not "discriminated" against, blow the competition out of the water. If you can't do that, then your soft stats will always be up for debate.
Also, you must realize that AA attempts to remedy pass discrimination in favor of white candidates in the game of life. Does it suck for you? maybe. Do you sound like a whiny brat? definitely.
Note: someone else mentioned this as an aside, but there probably is an argument for some type of economic AA program that isn't purely race based.
/ pragmatic
well said 67
"You can make all the normative arguments you want, but at the end of the day, if you want to ensure you're not "discriminated" against, blow the competition out of the water. If you can't do that, then your soft stats will always be up for debate."
- Princeton admission officer to Jews and Catholics circa 1950
Oh my. I suppose it was perfectly predictable that all of the angry, little trolls that have taken over this blog of late would use this story as an opportunity to post their pathetic, borderline-racist anti-AA rants, yet at the same time I can't help but feel sorry for you. So much misplaced angst. Get over it, work hard, and hopefully one day you'll have the fortune of having a job at a diverse workplace -- which anyone who has any real world experience will tell you, is undoubtedly a very good thing.
137 -
Though I realize I will never get to do this, I sincerely wish that I could break your stupid fucking nose. You are an absolutely disgusting human being.
I agree with 126 and 130. A few black students I knew in law school (T6) did well. They worked hard and got good grades. Did they get into law school through AA? I don't know, maybe. If they did, I don't blame them or hold anything against them. They are good people and applied and were accepted. I never once got the sense that they felt "entitled" to anything. It's really not them to blame for AA or "diversity intiatives".
I'm not really sure where this deep resentment for black people comes from. Especially ones that are trying to do something positive in their lives. I guess I used to be a bit bitter too at black people when I didn't get into my top choice of law school. But then I realized that they didn't pass AA legislation.
140: You're a self-contradicting imbecile.
"I'm not really sure where this deep resentment for black people comes from."
See 137/109. Oh, and it's not black people generally. It's always particular individuals.
109/137--
I sound like "a whiny little brat"? You are an idiot.
If you don't want to be discriminated against, "blow the competition out of the water"? Unless you are black, then don't worry about blowing the competition out of the water, right? Will your soft stats be up for debate? Or would that be racist because you are a minority?
Your argument is exactly what racist white people used in the 1960's as a reason against Affirmative Action. "If you don't want to be discriminated against, just be loads better then the other person." So much better, that nobody would ever even think to hire someone over you because of their skin color.
"Does it suck for me?" No, I have worked hard enough to overcome AA racism. Does it suck for you that your sense of entitlement has taken over any hint of rational thinking ability you possess? Definitely.
139 was that an argument FOR AA? Because as a Jewish Princeton grad, I can tell you we DO blow the competition out of the water, and we don't need any AA.
139 - probably true. No where did I say it is the right answer, just the set of rules that are being employed. My point again is that whining about it a bratty tone with no self reflection is a waste of time. Newsflash: you probably aren't as good as you think you are. (not directed at you specifically)
141 - 137 here. Unless you have an advanced belt in Jiu Jitsu or Kenpo, I am positive that after you attempted to break my nose you would end up in the ICU.
My shitty lawfirm, Thompson Hine, ranks 149th for diversity and a whopping 5.4% of the partners are minorities.
Why, yes, Thompson Hine is the same crap firm that recently gave all associates a huge pay cut, laid off a bunch of staff, laid off a bunch of associates, and constant stealth layoffs.
Thompson Hine - pay cuts and firings for everyone! Limited promotion opportunities for minorities! Come start your career with us today!
-Rogue Associate
146 - It clearly was an argument against racism in admissions.
Not 139
126 and 130 - most people don't hate diversity. They hate racism. Racism does not only mean white people keeping minorities down. Racism = basing decisions on race. When AA policies involve racial criteria and grant favor based on race, they are inherently racist.
It doesn't make sense to blame anyone for taking advantage of ethical opportunities. It does makes sense to blame people for advocating the implementation of policies which propagate racist actions. I think many people blame minorities because they view them as somewhat responsible for these policies.
The people who are most to blame are people like 140. People who propagate the attitude that these matters should not be discussed logically and freely suppress the conversation by using personal attacks on those who disagree with their conceptions.
Everyone, please assess 137/147's comments according to the lowered AA standard of quality. It's okay if he's stupid and unfunny.
Lets be honest here, most (at least 85%) of the students you went to your T-10 law school with were not the hardest workers on the planet, unless partying, instant messaging and posting updates on facebook the entire semester passes as hard work these days.....
145 - your friend here. How does it feel tp be discriminated against? How should we go about remedying this wrong?
151 - let me stop trolling you guys before you go out and try to form a lynching party.
"Instead, fair treatment and a respectful working environment would suffice. That doesn't cost money. It does (in some places) cost a fairly massive change in firm culture."
Um, what, Elie? What firm is devoid of this "respectful working environment?" And in terms of "fair treatment," was it not enough that you got AA to get into college, AA to get into law school, and then more AA to get a firm job? If you want, I could explain the fundamental unfairness in how blacks get law firm jobs these days, but I'll instead ask you: what is "unfair" about this process?
153 - your friend here. I was discriminated against all through my primary education, albeit because I was dirt poor, but not because of my skin color.
Solution to your question: Don't base decisions on race. Pretty simple huh?
137 "Also, you must realize that AA attempts to remedy pass discrimination in favor of white candidates in the game of life."
-
The problem with that is:
1. It's not a requirement of AA that your ancestors suffered from discrimination in the U.S.
This caused a big ruckus among blacks recently when it came out that a substantial portion (I forget the specific number, but at least a third) of students at Harvard were either recent immigrants or the children of recent immigrants. You might say to that: "well, they suffered in Africa!"--to which many groups, not to mention my Jewish ancestors, will be interested to know that this sort of thing entitles you to AA.
2. It is not a requirement that you were discriminated in favor of, previously, to now be hurt by AA.
Supporters of AA, in this thread,but also elsewhere, treat this as a technicality. That's what I get a kick out of when supporters talk about people understanding what African Americans have gone through. Gee, we get it. What a number of people on your side of the argument seem to be completely ignorant of occasionally is discrimination against people other than the groups that fall under AA. I don't mean "ignoring it," I mean genuinely ignorant on the subject.
It really should not have be pointed out that Jews, Catholics, the "short, dark, and dirty" of Europe, etc. were discriminated against continuously until recent times. What you now have, through AA, is a situation where 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 150 years ago my ancestors would have been discriminated against when it came time to apply for college for not being the right race . . . and now . . . we're being discriminated against for not being of the right race--plus for all the benefits we received in the past.
I realize African Americans have suffered more (at least in this country--I'll stack my family history in Europe up against yours), but to expect me not to merely be okay with this, but to feel guilty over this past, is ridiculous. This is not to mention Asians, the other large group that gets passed over when this argument gets framed as "privileged WASPs" vs. "under-represented minorities from the ghetto."
See, there's another group besides privileged WASPs who could be taking the place of an upper-middle class African American benefitting from affirmative actions.
There's another group besides the average middle to upper-middle class Asian who could be taking the place of an upper-middle class African American benefitting from affirmative actions.
There's another group besides me who could be taking the place of an upper-middle class African American benefitting from affirmative actions.
It's the person who's actually an "under-represented minorities from the ghetto."
By not basing this on class, wealthier blacks are taking positions from that person as well as me and affirmative action will do as much to solve the problems of that person over the next 20 years as it has over the past 20 years.
3. To the extent AA "attempts to remedy pass discrimination" it has been declared illegal by the Supreme Court.
Explicitly.
A long time ago.
Now, you know the diversity thing is really just a cover for another way to do this and I know the diversity thing is really just a cover for another way to do this and, but, by admitting that, you're admitting you're violating my constitutional rights and acting bewildered that I am upset by it.
156 - I'm out of the trolling game, but aren't the "let's all start from scratch" and "move beyond race" ideas pretty disingenuous. As I mentioned, it may be time to rethink AA and apply an economic component to its applications. .
156 - I'm out of the trolling game, but aren't the "let's all start from scratch" and "move beyond race" ideas pretty disingenuous. As I mentioned, it may be time to rethink AA and apply an economic component to its application.
157, who exactly is violating your constitutional rights? Once you tell me, I'll join you and we can go sue them. Let me know. Thanks.
Let me pose this question
The largest form of Racism in this country currently is Black on White (bordering on hate). But when this racism is referred to it is called "reverse-discrimination." How can this be called "reverse"?
The assumption that to "effectively represent clients" a firms needs a certain percentage of races X, Y, and Z is based on the idea that the races think and approach problems differently solely because of their race. I think there is a word for that....
161: I don't know if it's the largest, but it's definitely the largest growing form. Then again, I can't tell the difference, as black people have always, in general, treated me like shit.
I remember this one time when we were about to close a huge multi-billion dollar deal. We thought we had it air tight. THEN, we brought in the black trans-gender guy from the 31st floor. Because of his diversity, he immediately spotted a problem with our MAC definition. Dodged a bullet that time.
See, there are things about MAC definitions which a white male could never understand, because of cultural differences.
If you want to infuriate a Republican, tell him a lie. If you want to infuriate a Democrat, tell him the truth.
If you want to infuriate a Republican, tell him a lie. If you want to infuriate a Democrat, tell him the truth.
It's worth noting that AA and diversity are two different things. Those who seek to promote AA have used diversity as a means for doing so, but it is possible to value diversity and oppose race-based AA.
It's idiotic to be mad at anyone who accepts AA. If someone opens a door for you, you should walk through it. But, as an earlier commenter noted, I don't understand what kind of revolution of fair treatment and a respectful work environment Ellie's calling for.
I've worked in a number of different companies, and at none of them have african-americans been treated unfairly; if anything, they usually get first consideration for promotion and all sorts of special diversity success panels and conferences. A former co-worker was absolutely terrible at her job, and leveraged her status as an african-american to get transferred from a position when anyone else would have been terminated by threatening a discrimination suit: the lady was coming in two hours late and leaving three hours early. I think this type of special treatment, in addition to all of the official racially discriminatory AA policies, can create resentment.
But it's disturbing that Ellie sees the situation so differently. Why is it that non-black employees/students see african-americans as receiving excessively favorable treatment, but black employees/students like Ellie think they aren't even getting fair or respectful treatment? The answer could be that Ellie and anyone who agrees with him is an entitled whiner, but I doubt it. Why is it that even with all of the extra dviersity initiatives and AA, african-americans still feel like they aren't receiving a fair shake?
Black and gay is no way to go through life, son.
Diversity is a means to the ends of merit-based applications and job hiring; transcending racial and gender bias to "discover" the best candidates. Filling quotas doesn't "correct" historical injustices, because the candidate doesn't deserve the position or job based on his own merit. His record isn't as good as his peer. He is judged not based on the content of his character, but by the color of his skin.
We are developing an entitlement system based on the overall representation of national population. If THAT is the desired model, then we should be excluding the majority of Jewish, Asian (East Asian and Subcontinental) candidates for jobs. Of course to do so would be to substantially lower the quality of the workforce...
It looks like Partner Emeritus is busy today. I was looking forward to hearing his/her opinion on diversity.
Black racism? A black person, by definition, cannot be racist. They don't have any control over other people's lives. They can't tell you what neighborhood to live in. They can't tell you what school to go to. They can't tell you, you're a second class citizen. Black people can say all kinds hate stuff to whites, but all black people do is talk. White people do. White people made laws that blacks couldn't own property. White people get together to make sure blacks don't move into their neighborhoods.
Have you ever seen a sign that said, "White boy, if you're in this town when the sun goes down, we'll hang you."? Racism is a practice. Let me know when black people have enough power to control white people's lives. "black racism" is simply a bi-product of white racism..... a cultural backlash. A human response to the oppression that has been perpetrated on the black community since they've been here and only in the last 30 or so years has (white) racism begun to change.
"all black people do is talk"
Actually, in the NYC public schools they push white kids down the stairs and spit on them. Ask me how I know.
99.99% of individual white people can't control anybody else's lives in that way either. Your racist ass just decided to lump all white people together.
So does "definition" have anything to do with the dictionary anymore?
173: how do you know?
I'd imagine if "blacks" have to work in work environments with people like most of the commenters then they certainly don't work in a "respectful work environment. "
I was raised to have a firm distrust of anyone "of color".
Everyone, NEWSFLASH!
Ellie is a flaming liberal, hence He (or as Bert would say she) could not cut it in BigLaw. Many times liberals like Ellie get their feelings hurt too much, or the lifestyle is too much for them.
Why should whites be forced to give up the institutions they created for themselves? Why are others entitled to things they didn't create?
178, me too. I'm with you bud.
172,
Clearly you have never been in a predominantly black area. I am from India and it is no different for me than it is for whites...it is 100% disgusting. If you are not black, they will stare at you, and make crude comments, while showing you the outline of the knife/gun they have in their pants.
...but apparently Black people never DO anything...
-Tarbosh
172, let me introduce you to our President. He's black, just in case you can't see color.
Also Governor Patterson, who allegedly fired an aide for being white.
But you're right. No black person has ever been in a position of power in America that had any control over other people's lives.
182-
Not to mention the "Black Culture" glorifies killing and raping in their music/movies.
....you are right, black people don't do anything...its all talk.
Actually, 165, if you want to infuriate a Republican, just tell them your income.
183,
Ironic, a blind man fires someone for their skin color.
Obama and Patterson are doing their best to bankrupt any private institution...Hooray for black people in power!!!
So let me get this straight, people are pissed that 3% of the attorneys at their firm are black??? blacks are taking ALL the spots and getting all this favorable treatment, yet most law firms have a handful of black associates and don't even have one black partner. This is the crap that gets your blood boiling? Does anyone actually have any facts to back up their dribble?
REAL research has shown that a "black sounding" name ALONE gets you significantly fewer callbacks, even when they are sending out the exact same resume.....but of course a few slip through and actually get an interview and since they weren't hung then racism doesn't exist anymore...give me a break
white people seem to believe that since they don't run around screaming racial slurs that they are not racist, nah, but as soon as you get the chance to be anonymous (read ANY website that allows anonymous/unmoderated comments), we all get to see how disgustingly hate filled many of you are
172 = idiot or conservative troll?
no, 187, a "ghetto-sounding" name gets you fewer callbacks. Even Freakonomics admitted this distinction.
Try sending out resumes with "white" stripper names (like Tiffanni or Brittini) and compare that with "black" middle-class names like Olivia or Denise (the Cosby kids' names). Omg, society discriminates against whites!
But I imagine your feeble 149-LSAT mind cannot make such an analysis.
So by disgustingly hate filled you mean people asserting that no one should be given special treatment? Or making the arguments that 4 out of 9 SC justices consistently hold. KKK indeed.
Also, above, take Paul Weiss. It is 25% diverse. This if anything is an over-representation of these people based on the overall population. So where do you get the 3% number?
60s are over. Sorry to break the news.
187 - where is this "REAL" research? Please provide your source
187,
Maybe it is not that the name sounds black, but rather, the name sounds absolutely ridiculous and would be an embarassment to the firm.
Shaniqua, Darnell, LaToya, LaFawnda, Rondell, Vontell, Toryean, Antwan, Devonte, Shaiday, Kishara, Tayshaun, Deron, Rau'Shee, Raynell, Deontay, Taraje, Jozy, Hyleas, Chaunte, Trevell, Ogonna, Dremiel, Sholandra, Michandra, Shquan, Anfernee, Maneesha....Should I continue?
I don't want anyone with the name Anfernee working for me whether White, Black Red, Blue, Purple, Orange...any other!
-Tarbosh
As a black immigrant (i'm pretty certain i have benefitted from affirmative action in the past), here's my take on the issue:
Most firms do not really care about diversity of any kind. They pay lip service to it because they must in order to appease clients who care about diversity, or to save face in diversity rankings. So they hire minorities for the sake of "diversity." But when these minorities join the firm, they often find it hard to get regular work from partners and are often overlooked for assignments (i'm talking about minorities who have not even been given a chance to even prove what they are capable of). Also, minorities (blacks and hispanics in particular), are often given far less room for error than their white counterparts.
I am convinced my first firm hired me for "diversity" reasons and the entire experience was a nightmare. I spent my first several months out of law school at the firm begging for work. Whereas, my white coworkers with lesser grades and from lesser schools got work pretty easily. It took a while to prove myself because I just was not getting as much work as my mates.
My current firm does not seem to care about diversity and I am much happier. There are still some partners who avoid me like the plague... but i could care less at this point. I get enough work from the partners that like me and, in any case, I can't wait to get the hell out of biglaw.
The moral of my story for minority candidates is this: make sure you join a firm that really believes in you as opposed to one that wants you as a token for "diversity" purposes. I acknowledge, however, that it is pretty difficult to tell the difference many times
192: Those are lower-class black names coming out of the 60s black power movement.
You will find most middle-class blacks have neutral names. What about "Michelle" Obama?
As a black immigrant (i'm pretty certain i have benefitted from affirmative action in the past), here's my take on the issue:
Most firms do not really care about diversity of any kind. They pay lip service to it because they must in order to appease clients who care about diversity, or to save face in diversity rankings. So they hire minorities for the sake of "diversity." But when these minorities join the firm, they often find it hard to get regular work from partners and are often overlooked for assignments (i'm talking about minorities who have not even been given a chance to even prove what they are capable of). Also, minorities (blacks and hispanics in particular), are often given far less room for error than their white counterparts.
I am convinced my first firm hired me for "diversity" reasons and the entire experience was a nightmare. I spent my first several months out of law school at the firm begging for work. Whereas, my white coworkers with lesser grades and from lesser schools got work pretty easily. It took a while to prove myself because I just was not getting as much work as my mates.
My current firm does not seem to care about diversity and I am much happier. There are still some partners who avoid me like the plague... but i could care less at this point. I get enough work from the partners that like me and, in any case, I can't wait to get the hell out of biglaw.
The moral of my story for minority candidates is this: make sure you join a firm that really believes in you as opposed to one that wants you as a token for "diversity" purposes. I acknowledge, however, that it is pretty difficult to tell the difference many times.
I know that I have had to re-do numerous docs that were worked on by african american associates in my class..so many grammatical issues that I wanted to throw hooked on phonics at this guy.
I mentioned this to the partner I was working with and he told me "you just have to deal with this sort of thing, there is a difference in their culture, and to him that was grammatically correct"
Needless to say I was beside myself.
Moral of the story is, you probably don't get work because the firm doesn't have the time for a doc to be drafted and reviewed twice.
194, if they have "neutral" names, how would the resume recipient know the race of the person based on the name in order to discriminate against the blacks? The common Freakonomics-cited study used only first names. A "Michelle" could be any race.
Self-contradiction pwned.
Diversity is just an excuse to discriminate against white men. I'm personally ashamed to have participated in this farce on behalf of my former firm, conducting on-campus interviews and then ginning up a call back list chock full of underqualified minorities and women. Best, of course, to have lots of minority women, since they are a two-fer.
The whole idea is a sham, and the lower a firm ranks in the Diversity standings, the better it probably is.
WHITE MEN -- RISE UP AND OVERTHROW THE ESTABLISHMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wait, what?
Jermaine Jackson's son is named "Jermajesty"
199, some brave souls tried to oppose Obama but they were branded racists. See, e.g., how the 50% of whites who voted for Hillary over Obama were racists, but the 95% of blacks who voted for Obama over Hillary in the primaries were not making any decision based on race.
25% would not be overrepresentation of ALL minority groups and Paul weiss is certainly not 25% black....
do the women posters, if there are any, have any problems with diversity efforts aimed at women?
WHITE MEN -- RISE UP AND OVERTHROW THE ESTABLISHMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wait, what?
202 - The U.S. is 80% white. There are these vast stretches of what you would probably call "flyover country" in which a lot of the country lives. Not everything is NYC and LA. Therefore, 25% of minorities is an over-representation.
I am not sure if 196 was directed at me - 193/195 (sorry for the double post!).
If it was, i am very certain the reason i did not get work early on at my first firm had nothing to do with anyone actually having to review my work twice. It may have had something to do with the fear of having to review my work twice though -- essentially, the belief held by many whites in law firms that blacks are simply less capable. In my own experience, once i started getting regular work and could prove myself I was generally okay. Although, at that point, I had already developed a lot of resentment towards my firm and could not wait to leave.
My point for minorities is that the whole "diversity" talk is a scam. Do not pick a firm based on how much attention they pay to "diversity." Nobody really cares about diversity in reality.
someone needs to give 87 credit for posting the funniest comment in weeks
Agreed,
Touche to 87
-Tarbosh
172 -- Nice trolling. I'll bite.
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus0602.pdf
page 30- table 42.
Black offenders responsible for 19.2% of completed violence crimes against white victims.
White offenders responsible for 9.5% of completed violence crimes against black victims.
Black offenders responsible for 16.7% of rape/sexual assaults against white victims.
White offenders responsible for 0% of rape/sexual assaults against black victims.
Black offenders responsible for 32.0% of robberies against white victims.
White offenders responsible for 6.6% of robberies against black victims.
These statistics are amazing considering that white people are about 75% of the population in the United States, and black people are about 12.3% of the population in the United States.
172--
Chalk it up to poverty, systemic opposition and being held down by the man.... whatever you want to. Just don't tell me that "A black person, by definition, cannot be racist." when criminals who happen to be black disproportionately seek out white victims.
205, perhaps you should blame the unqualified black associates who preceded you at the firm, who were hired despite their lack of merit because of affirmative action. They created low expectations for people like you, until you could prove otherwise, that you were not like them. Notice how lawyers have no expectations of subpar work from Asians (also a minority), who coincidentally rarely benefit from affirmative action in hiring.
Who cares?
uhm, the "minority" population of the U.S. is slightly higher than 25%. you will have to do a little bit more than look around your home or your "flyover" state to determine the population profile of the entire U.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States#Demographics
And I live in NYC.
Also should be pointed out that Jewish Americans in this country got to where they are entirely on their own, DESPITE centuries of descrimination all over this world, because of hard work (and not because of affirmative action).
Also should be pointed out that Jewish Americans in this country got to where they are entirely on their own, DESPITE centuries of descrimination all over this world, because of hard work (and not because of affirmative action).
If you should have learned anything about the last 6 months, it's that race just doesn't matter. Bad sh*t happens to everyone, dished out by anyone in power who can take advantage of you. It turns out, now the people who will exploit you if you're poor/powerless will be of all races. Yay cultural diversity! You think in 4 years ghettos (and I don't just mean black ghettos, go to East LA, or Oklahoma, or NYC's chinatown, and see some poor hispanics, whites, and asians) will be gone because Obama's black? Hell, he's not even really black. He's just as much a recent immigrant as anyone else, divorced from the historical slave-era. No, poor people are going to remain exploited. It's historical accident that it was rich white people doing the exploiting for the first 150 years of this country, and the 200 years before that.
AA was created by rich whites 40 years ago - it hurt poor whites, recent-immigrant or been around for 300 years, not the people who created it, for the benefit of preventing mass social unrest. If you think it was anything other than a means to appease (rightly) extremely pissed-off descendant-of-slaves black people, I think you drank the Kool-Aid fed to you by the rich whites who would do anything to hold onto power. Stop drinking. AA is merely a spectacle, it divides people based on group. Why do you like some random black dude better than some random white dude if you're black? Who the hell cares? This race wars BS has got to stop. White people- black people aren't stealing your jobs. White people in power are stealing your jobs. Black people- stop blaming white people. The white people responsible are all long since dead. Give it a rest.
I know, I know, I'm a white male so I don't get it. But consider this: one of my parents wasn't even in this country until the 60's, and the one that was, was dirt-poor in Idaho. I've gone to primarily white public schools in rich burbs, primarily minority (asian and black) public schools in the city, and primarily white public schools in the city. Ya know what? The popular kids, of any race, always sh*t on the less popular kids, of any race. All AA gets you is mistrust of ability.
If I got kicked around be powerful whites all my life, and called racist names, I'd be pissed off too. Turns out that we all get kicked around by powerful whites (and increasingly, powerful everyone) and get called racist, or insulting, or demeaning names. It still doesn't entitle any of us to anything other than not being kicked around. Life sucks, and it's not because of your race.
:yawn:
Who gives a fuck?
209 - granted that an average asian is miles more intelligent and infinitely more hard-working than an average black; and, is much less likely to play the race card. But there IS a box for asians in the diversity section of NALP rankings -- unlike the other ethnic and economic groups mentioned above. So, please s-f-u and enjoy the priviliged status with some class.
The one fact which hasn't been mentioned, but always should be mentioned when discussing AA is that IT HARM'S MINORITIES. Prof Sander (UCLA) has done the best research on the issue of "mismatch." His research and response to critics can be found here: http://www.law.ucla.edu/sander/
Please do not advocate for AA until reading his research, your arguments are uninformed.
Summing up: as many posters have commented, AA is immoral and as Prof Sander points out, it actually harms the very group it is supposed to help.
What reasons exist for its continuance?
209 - granted that an average asian is miles more intelligent and infinitely more hard-working than an average black; and, is much less likely to play the race card. But there IS a box for asians in the diversity section of NALP rankings -- unlike the other ethnic and economic groups mentioned above. So, please s-f-u and enjoy the priviliged status with some class.
218 -- to gain more political. In basketball, for example, over 75% are black, but that's not a cause to stop the struggle; more than 50% of coaches and even more owners are still white - and that's unacceptable and this problem can easily be remedied by just applying consistent pressure on the league. Admit it, there is a power vacuum right now and blacks are just in the best position right now to take advantage. Blacks (or African Americans, ha ha) consistently vote for our own kind -- the reason we control majority of the cities in this country and the now the Presidency! Show me another race or ethnic group that no matter what votes for its own kind in such high proportion. True, it can lead to incompetency and corruption, but it's hell of a lot better than giving up political power. In conclusion, don't playa hate - appreciate white mtf
219, I am not sure what you mean by "NALP rankings" since NALP specifically says "NALP does not rank law schools or legal employers and discourages the use of rating systems or rank-ordered lists in evaluating law schools, legal employers." Perhaps you mean the NALP listings? The NALP directory also has a box for "whites" so wtf is your point?
We all know that not all minorities are treated equal (hence the cute term "underrepresented minorities"), and that Asians don't get affirmative action because they're the one minority group that has no sense of victimhood/entitlement and actually makes an effort. The UC system was forced to get rid of affirmative action in its admissions and its proportion of Asian students went up more than the increase in whites.
221 -- Every diversity event I stumbled upon has included Asians. That you don't get as many freebies as blacks and hispanics is probably . But you have to admit that asians can be difficult to work with, probably because the diversity officers have overpreached that asians are too quiet, too submissive and ignored. I do not mean to insult, just want to point out that affirmative action crap is always counterproductive (if not in the short-run then in the long-run), and Justice Thomas has it right. There should just be laws against discrimination, eventually merit will prove all determinative.
137/147 finally shows his true colors - for all his talk of tolerance and performance, he is prejudiced against the Chinese and Koreans --- not to mention the Americans and Israelis --- martial arts, that is.
Cleary is very hostile to women litigators. The only reason its diversity rankings have ever been respectable is because of the corporate an bankruptcy departments. Unfortunately, these departments have now apparently come into line. For purposes of these diversity rankings, corporate, bankruptcy, and litigation departments should be considered separately.
Every time there is a discussion on AA, the thread inevitably degenerates into a "black bashing" fest., and invariably, Asians are held up as the ideal. In law firm world, Asians are also "underrepresented" and get to count for "diversity" purposes. And yes, I have heard Asians complain of discrimination and of being passed up for work in favor of their white counterparts.
Asians have an immigrant mentality, because that is what they are-- immigrants. Comparing Asians to blacks is like apple to oranges. Compare Asians to other immigrant groups and I don't think you will find them the "only" minority group that has no sense of victimhood.
Having said that, lay off black folks people! Others benefit from AA too, you know. Why are blacks consistently the recipients of your venom? If you are going to hate, why not be an equal opportunity hater?
225, blacks are the focus because they benefit the most from AA, and thus tend to be the most unqualified in comparison to their peers, but many blacks still play the race card, make gross racial stereotypes about "white privilege," overwhelmingly oppose civil rights for other groups (gays), and think they're somehow disadvantaged in hiring or admissions. This despite the fact that they have made the most visible progress in racial representation (try to name one Hispanic Supreme Court Justice, President, or Secretary of State).
215, thank you. thank you. thank you.
Isn't all the vitriol directed towards Blacks here evidence that AA is still relevant? In any event . . . .
A little story: A friend of mine, Black, received her review, which glowed, except for some rather nasty remarks. This associate worked mostly with the same partner (a White male who loved her). He investigated and found that some younger, Hitler-Youth looking, no book-of-business having bastard dirtied her review with said negativity despite the fact she did NO WORK for him. At a previous firm, the same partner did the same thing to me (a Black male).
My friend's partner (who had a huge book of business) warned the scummy partner that he would personally run him out of the firm if he even breathed on my friend again.
And folks, I got a million stories like that. I've worked at T15 firms that recruit primarily from the T14. I've worked on the recruiting committee. I've turned down some great minority students with solid grades (3.3 - 3.4) from T14 schools with great extracurricular activities. These minority associates are no dummies. And yes, I have stories regarding Latinos and Asians getting screwed over.
If you think law firms aren't still dominated by White males who seek out others like them to promote, just look at the dearth of minorities (including the "model minority" Asians) in partnership. AA has been pushed by Corporate America for almost 20 years, yet nothing has changed in Big Law.
161- "157, who exactly is violating your constitutional rights? Once you tell me, I'll join you and we can go sue them. Let me know. Thanks."
-
Sorry, for the late reply--swamped at work. If an affirmative action program is attempting to correct past wrongs by discriminating against someone based on race, it's pursuing a goal by a manner that is unconstitutional.
I don't mean that it should be unconstitutional (based on the basic "you shouldn't be able to discriminate against me based on my race" bit), I mean that this has been the ruling of the Supreme Court for at least three decades and should be common knowledge among law students. You're allowed to discriminate to achieve diversity--if you're seeking another aim, too bad. Yeah, everybody reading this thread, including the person I was responding to, knows full well this is the main aim of most affirmative action supporters and is what the actual debate outside of the Supreme Court generally centers on--but the word "diversity" is used as a buzzword for a reason, and that's because if you're conceding your goal is otherwise, your conceding you're pursuing an unconstitutional aim.
So, if you want to admit that is the actual aim of many admissions officers (and let's be honest, it is), you're conceding they're pursuing an unconstitutional goal and illegally discriminating in the process.
Now, I agree with most of the latter posters. It's foolish, hypocritical, and a bit disgusting to toss epithets, hatred, or blame on black applicants for all of this. Whether they want to admit it or not, most white posters on this thread would make use of affirmative action if they could (though, I should say that I seriously doubt you'd be as forgiving of me if I took advantage of a similar program, say--in a private club or in a college 30 years ago, that gave whites an advantage over blacks).
228- "If you think law firms aren't still dominated by White males who seek out others like them to promote, just look at the dearth of minorities (including the "model minority" Asians) in partnership. AA has been pushed by Corporate America for almost 20 years, yet nothing has changed in Big Law."
-
I appreciate circumstances like the one you mention happened, but stats beat anecdotes and after giving a boost to some people who, on average (and I'm sorry if it's painful to say this, but it's a basic fact) have lower law school GPAs, lower LSAT scores, lower college GPAs, lower SAT scores, etc. it's possible such groups who have been given numerous boosts aren't succeeding as well as others for another reason besides racism. (I don't believe it has anything to do with innate intelligence, but I also don't believe signs of familiar of affirmative action to do what most supporters of it want it to do should keep being used as a reason to maintain it.)
One of the ideas behind affirmative action was that a person's true merit isn't reflected by these numbers because of all he or she has suffered through life. If you take them, give them a boost, give them a boost, give them a boost....and they still aren't succeeding, it's possible there was a different reason.
Typo: "signs of failure of affirmative action . . ."
You can't blame someone for accepting the handouts that AA gives, but you can blame them for self-segregating and making the "alternative ideas" argument for diversity a sham.
225: Let me explain how you are indicative of the problem here.
1.) Bring up AA.
2.) Attack AA on principle.
3.) Defend blacks.
4.) Attack AA on principle.
5.) Ask why people keep attacking blacks.
6.) Attack AA on principle.
7.) Bring up slavery, and ask why everyone is racist.
8.) Attack AA on principle.
9.) Additional non sequitur.
Repeat.
Latham Joke of the Day:
What is the difference between Latham Partners and gays? Well, for some of them, nothing. But for others, gays like to take it up the ass and Latham Partners like to give it up the ass. Perfect combination.
230 - 228 here. Who are these AA people being promoted with materially lower measurements? I was in business before law school. I know many people - Whites and minorities - both in the law and in Corporate America and have had these discussions. These mythical marginal AA folks are just that - a myth.
Again, I've recruited several minorities into my firm and I was instructed to recruit only strong candidates so as to counter any "marginal AA candidate" arguments from the less enlightened in the firm. I know other attorneys at other firms that did the same.
Another story: AA was a big topic (stirred up by the usual conservative suspects) at my T10 undergrad. I decided to take an informal poll, as my campus had a good number of Blacks and Latinos. To a person, they ALL had high school grades 3.8 or better in AP subjects and did reasonably well to "I killed the SAT."
Maybe the marginally AA candidates come into play at wack-ass schools and shitty firms, businesses and lower level government jobs. But in all my years, I haven't seen it. I think it's more racist BS to make failed Whites feel better about themselves (the recent dyslexic White firefighter case notwithstanding - I hope there is a narrowly tailored decision in his favor).
230 - 228 here. Who are these AA people being promoted with materially lower measurements? I was in business before law school. I know many people - Whites and minorities - both in the law and in Corporate America and have had these discussions. These mythical marginal AA folks are just that - a myth.
Again, I've recruited several minorities into my firm and I was instructed to recruit only strong candidates so as to counter any "marginal AA candidate" arguments from the less enlightened in the firm. I know other attorneys at other firms that did the same.
Another story: AA was a big topic (stirred up by the usual conservative suspects) at my T10 undergrad. I decided to take an informal poll, as my campus had a good number of Blacks and Latinos. To a person, they ALL had high school grades 3.8 or better in AP subjects and did reasonably well to "I killed the SAT."
Maybe the marginally AA candidates come into play at wack-ass schools and shitty firms, businesses and lower level government jobs. But in all my years, I haven't seen it. I think it's more racist BS to make failed Whites feel better about themselves (the recent dyslexic White firefighter case notwithstanding - I hope there is a narrowly tailored decision in his favor).
I am Chinese. I am all for absolute equality. Hire people on merit and promote them on merit. I love the new formula. Management teams that play the ratings game and hire token albino Peuvian transexual dwarfs to score points on the MLJ and AmLaw 200 now look like even bigger idiots. Look at MoFo`s new score - hahaha hehehehe - I never laughed so much.
I am Chinese. I am all for absolute equality. Hire people on merit and promote them on merit. I love the new formula. Management teams that play the ratings game and hire token albino Peruvian transexual dwarfs to score points on the MLJ and AmLaw 200 now look like even bigger idiots. Look at MoFo`s new score - hahaha hehehehe - I never laughed so much.
235- "230 - 228 here. Who are these AA people being promoted with materially lower measurements? I was in business before law school. I know many people - Whites and minorities - both in the law and in Corporate America and have had these discussions. These mythical marginal AA folks are just that - a myth."
. . . .
"Maybe the marginally AA candidates come into play at wack-ass schools and shitty firms, businesses and lower level government jobs. But in all my years, I haven't seen it. I think it's more racist BS to make failed Whites feel better about themselves"
-------------
I find it very hard to believe you've studied this impartially and yet would make a statement like that. If you want to assert it, here:
http://www.debatingracialpreference.org/GRUTTER-Rates.htm#table2
If you want to continue asserting that:
"There is literally no chance that these results could be sustained under any race-blind admissions program. In 1997 when petitioner applied, there were only *67 minority applicants, compared to 1236 white and Asian American applicants,* in the LSAT range (164+) from which over 90% of the admitted white students were drawn. JA 172-79. Competition for these minority applicants is extremely fierce, and the Law School cannot hope to enroll more than a few of them. In 2000, there were only 26 African-American applicants nationwide with at least a 3.5 GPA and a 165 on the LSAT compared to 3173 whites and Asian Americans. 6 **Any race-blind methodology applied to the upper and middle grade and test score ranges will therefore invariably select a class with very few minority students.**"
http://www.debatingracialpreference.org/GRUTTER-Respondent.htm
This is not 20 years ago, where opponents of AA didn't have access to data, and you could bullshit them with this stuff.
Please spare me.
#238 - as the only albino Peruvian transexual dwarf in Biglaw, I resent your comment. I got where I am on merit, even though U need a booster chair.
One should put an end to minority based legislation, quotas, and programs and change the focus to non-immigrants. This approach arguably allows past wrongs a better chance of being be righted by automatically ruling out any group that was not the recipient of those wrongs.
Who are the non-immigrants? AA's and Native Americans.
Why focus on non-immigrants? They have unfortunately born the brunt of the past wrongs.
Shouldn't AA's just learn to put race behind them? This argument mistakenly assumes that AA's put race in front of them. If AA's didn't put race in front of themselves, then why should society charge them with the burden of removing it?
Shouldn't all minorities stick together? This particular change in focus shouldn't cause a divide. Those of us from other minority groups should stand behind the AA's, because many of us have benefited from their struggle and now is the time to give back.
Wasn't our last president a "C" student?
Where is the merit in that?
Law firms also hire the children of their lawyers, where is the merit in that?
Law schools enroll "legacy" applicants, where is the merit in that?
The idea of a merit-based society is a farse. On the other hand, a case stands a better chance of success when it is worked on by competent lawyers.
There are no right answers when it comes to AA. Just scrap it, it hasn't worked.
AA's will not lose anything because they have not gained anything.
#240 - Is that Pedro Gonzalez ? Hola amigo. We met at a campus interview several years ago. We were focused on young Asian tigers back then, but now we are ready for someone like you. We are in position to offer you immediate partnership, subject to a mutually agreed physical start-up date not to be before 2015. That will give us time to refit your office and make everything smaller - teeny weeney. Throw away the booster chair Speedy. You won't have to suffer that degradation any longer - we will meet you half way! No more reaching for knobs! We will install a new bathroom for you and the other one like you that we plan to hire in the following decades. Our plans are quite advanced. We have started refitting the service elevator for your private use. We plan to set up your office on level B2 -- right next to your car park! Were bending over backwards. Some firms are focused on the BRIC strategy, but for us it is all about PRIC's. By 2050 we will open offices in Lima, Moscow and Goa. We already have China covered, and have plans to hire some real Chinese people with funny teeth and strange birth marks in the next couple of years.The world is your oyster Pedro. So now is the time to make the move to San Francisco - California's own pot puree of Rio, Santiago and the Galapolgos - and home of the famous Village People. Ciao amigo/a.
Diversity-Keeping racists in business since 1968