Winner Winner Chicken Dinner!

SCOTUS pay cut 15 percent?

white men 1
empathy 0

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner!

fuck you sotomayor!!

Never would have happened if a latino woman was on the bench. She'd know better.

sotomayOOPS!

There must not be any wise Latinas on the court.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf

sounds like sotomayor won't have too many friends on the bench.

If this post doesn't bring out the typical racist idiots on this board, I don't know what will.

How many "breakings" can you find in this post?

Also, glad to know that "the television" reports things.

I saw it here before Scotusblog. Nice job, Elie.

4, there was a Hispanic firefighter who also won on this appeal, hth

12,

Typical racist idiot here.

Equality won. You, and your wise Latinas, lost.

This is a good ruling for all races. Discrimination and racism is wrong, period. It is not OK to discriminate against anyone, regardless of race. And yes, Elie and the rest of you liberals, it is wrong to discriminate against Whites as well.

Ha ha, how you like me now?

Suck it, Mystal!

White OppressOR!

Im impressed with Elie this morning. Oh and more goat herder please.

17. This must be a nice moment for you. I'm going to let you have it.
-- Bob Sugar.

Uhm. Hispanic is white. Not kidding. look it up.

21

But only when it's convenient.

I am a white man who was denied a job at Kennedy's Fried Chicken. I took the same application exam as the other candidates and scored as well. I could name all 6 of Sgt Kennedy's herbs and spices. The only issue with my candidacy is that I cant work after dusk on Friday or before dusk on Saturday.

Do you think race prevented me from entering the ranks of Kennedy Fried Chicken? If so, should I sue in the Second Circuit?

Please advise.

to 21:

So really, SotomaryOR should just say she is a really wise whitey, right?

The day that Hispanics are white is the day that the Germans bomb pearl harbor.

Comment removed by moderator.

Comment removed by moderator.

Comment removed by moderator.

testes

Supreme Court = racists.

Obviously fires care a lot about the "diversity" of the crews fighting them. Who cares if the firefighter management can't read at a basic 10th grade level, as long as they're black (I mean "diverse").

When will these hypocritical liberals get it through their thick skulls? Race has nothing at all to do with historical disadvantage. Money does.

Whether you are black or white or hispanic or whatever other nonsensical racial term devised by liberals to enslave the voting populace, the definitive factor as to whether or not you get ahead in life is the amount of money your family has, not whether your skin color id different than that of the "majority".

Can anyone answer to me why Michael Jordan's son should be able to receive a plus factor simply because he's black? Anyone?

31,

A little bird told me that the slave trade had an economic impact. I'm still waiting on confirmation, though.

WOW!

Comment removed by moderator.

31, because people who look like him were sold into slavery by other people who look like him in Africa 200 years ago.

This is why, as a Russian (not a coincidence that the words "Slav" and "slave" look similar) I get affirmative action as well. Wait, what, I don't?

I think that in some ways the saddest part of this story is the fact that the court really didn't even need to hear the case or write the opinion. Does anyone really believe that this would end up any differently than the usual 5-4 split?

24 is the POTD!

I'm glad the court showed empathy to the dyslexic firefighter who had to pay out of pocket for someone to record the study materials so that he could prepare adequately for this exam and who, despite his tremendous disadvantage, managed to get a top score. Thank goodness at least five members of court empathize with the plight of disadvantaged people.

Give 'em hell Frank!

SHAM WOW!

21

But only when it's convenient.

Judge Sotomayo would only want to be rescued by a minority fire fighter.

Substantive law has now place on ATL. Please get back to detailing the latest fashions for eye candy associates and schadenfreudeing all poor saps who're getting fired.

Comment removed by moderator.

I just skimmed the opinions, but the analyses seem very fact-based. Ginsburg et al say the test was flawed so the department rightly refused to certify the results. Kennedy et al say the test was fine and the city just decided it didn't like the racial composition of the high scorers. There's a big back and forth over whether there was improper political pressure from the black community. So some of the Justices think these non-black firefighters got screwed by a corrupt city political machine that doesn't think it represents them. Other Justices think the non-black firefighters are the unfortunate product of a system that protects them at the expense of the little guy.

So that's what our Supreme Court is -- a bunch of old people making Constitutional decisions based on their preexisting prejudices. Maybe something the Kwame Kilpatrick's and Todd Stroger's of the world should keep in mind the next time they think about doing something corrupt.

Only in our world of Orwellian double-think could anyone argue that a ruling in favor of racial equality was racist because it failed to treat races differently.

Does anyone doubt this would be a 9-0 decision if the city refused to enforce the results of the test after discovering that only black candidates achieved high scores?

I have a dream that one day white and Hispanic firefighters will be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

Mystal gotta get that...
.........food fOOD FOOOD!
.....................................that FOOD FOOD FOOD!

For those saying that latinos lost, you are wrong. A latino was on the side of the whiteys. I know it is shocking that a "dumb minority" passed the test!

I usually take a few goats from my flock to the annual livestock convention. Although some herders select their finest specimens and try to win first prize, I always chose the goats I find the most socially engaging. Who wants to sight-see with a morose goat? Two years ago I planned to bring Nana and Marta, my favorites. But I also noticed the young billy Krunislav exercising strenuously in the field and cleansing his pelt in the river. I asked Marta about his strange behavior. She informed me that Krunislav earnestly desired to attend the convention and had been training for months to persuade me to take him. Impressed by his dedication, I acquiesced. Krunislav pranced delightedly through the meadow. Shortly before we reached the convention, our food supplies ran low. I slaughtered Krunislav and fed the left-overs to Nana and Marta. Because he had exercised so hard, Krunislav was delicious. His mutton fetched third prize.

I am picturing Elie placing a call to Al Sharpton to discuss which donut shop still fries with lard and then to coordinate their cracker burning party at Freddie's. Tough luck, Elie, your racism will have to wait another day. Fat pussy toad.

47, all races should be treated equally, but some are more equal than others.

Why do the Ginsbergs of the world abhore strict interpretation of the Constitution but have a strict interpretation of any report or finding that focuses on minority oppression. In her dissent, she focuses on a 1970s report highlighting the lack of minorities in fire departments and the policies utilized to limit blacks and other minorities from getting hired. Maybe if she looked at a report conducted in THIS decade, her dissent might have merit.

47, I disagree. The Court wouldn't have even bothered to grant cert if this involved discrimination against minorities. It is only because this was about discrimination against white men, who really had it coming what with being white and male and all, that this was even a close call. Oh, and never mind that these men are fire fighters who risk their lives to save the lives of people of all races. No, all white men are alike and deserve to be discriminated against. And I'm probably a racist in the mind of the leftists on this site because I don't acknowledge the duty of every white male to suffer in silence for the sins of other white men generations ago.

Was anyone else startled by the dissent's statement that "better tests [had] been used in other cities, which have yielded less racially skewed outcomes'?Those tests are "better" because they yield the results the dissent favors. Bootstrapping at its finest.

Thank god I am white.

would you pay $400+ an hour for the work of a bar failing latham partner's son? good news lathan NY clients, you already are!

keep an eye on this up and comer, he could be the next george w. bush!

BREAKING NEWS: Epic summer associate shenanigans have been occuring. Stayed tuned to ATL for no story and more begging for tips.

What's wrong with being racy?

58, will you please stop repeating your Latham comment on every single god damned post? We know. Everyone who reads this site regularly has seen your posts fifteen times by now. Give it a fucking rest!

47. If there was a test that you needed to pass to gain advancement in society where only black people scored high enough to pass, that test would never make pass its "beta-launch." You wouldn't need to litigate it, they would just change the test on its own.

45. I tend to agree with you.

48. I have a dream that one day white and Hispanic firefighters will be judged based on their demonstrable skills at fighting fires, instead of silly written exams that are not an objective measure of anything.

The test should have been three questions: A) What would you do to prevent this exam from catching on fire? B) If this exam catches on fire, how would you put it out? C) Please light this exam on fire without hurting yourself or others.

--Elie

Is this legal proof that blacks and hispanics are just dumber?

Mystal, if you were on fire, I would save you.

Your Grocer

". If there was a test that you needed to pass to gain advancement in society where only black people scored high enough to pass, that test would never make pass its "beta-launch." You wouldn't need to litigate it, they would just change the test on its own. "

So how big is that chip on your shoulder, and do you plan on making sure your kids and grandkids carry that chip with them? Who is this "they" you're speaking of?

Pathetic, even for you. I don't see too many white NFL players griping about having to test at the draft combine.

blarf blarf!

Part of Ginsburg's dissent:

"The white firefighters who scored high on New Haven's promotional exams understandably attract the court's sympathy," she said. "But they had no vested right to promotion."

They also had no vested right in sympathy/empathy as they are white.

Fat pussy toad Elie- You're right, written exams suck. Your submissions to ATL Idol prove that.

62/Mystal, the test was a threshold for promotion to firefighter management. The test-takers were already firefighters and don't need to demonstrate their field skills (sorry that reality is getting in the way of your racist rant).
I would hope that my town's firefighter management can read and communicate at a basic 10th grade level. That's what the city hoped as well. But maybe that's too much to ask for blacks.

Also, the black-people-do-well test is called the NBA. That's why you think the NBA is racist, right?

67 - apparently Ginsburg has no sympathy for the Latino who score high on it. Racist bitch.

I would appreciate understanding what African Americans can point to that is inherently discriminatory in a written test? I'm not trying to make an argument by retorical question. I really would like to understand what it is about a written test (such as the LSAT or the fire-fighter exam in this case) that discriminates against blacks.

Firefighter positions are among the most competitive positions in the country at any time. By far, it is the most coveted blue collar job in our system. In New York, for example, tens of thousands of applicants compete for hundreds of spots and wait based on the order of their score for years.

Since supply >>> demand, there must be some objective way of giving the job to the most deserving candidates. Otherwise it will just be a patronage clusterfuck.

I wouldnt expect Ellie to have any appreciation for the intracacies of blue collar work. Its much easier to let affirmative action to get you into an Ivy League school where you can consistently underperform before failing to use your professional degree, thereby wasting the advantage unfairly bestowed on you.

Fat drunk and stupid is no way to go through life son.

63/Elie
Written exams are necessary, because there are a number of things that people have to know about fighting fires before you can actually fight fires. It's not just grab a hose an shoot at the red thing producing that gray/black stuff. There are structural matters involved in fighting fires. Who do you thinks helps when a car crashes into a side rail on a bridge and has to use the jaws of life. Who do you think is trained in other life-saving response techniques. Frankly, the training and knowledge of a firefighter is what saves a number of lives. I'd rather see a firefighter there to rescue me than an EMT - 50/50 chance the EMT doesn't even have a high school degree.

Elie, no doubt you would have failed the firefighter exam.

How was this even a close case?

according to CNN:

"The Supreme Court was being asked to decide whether there was a continued need for special treatment for minorities, or whether enough progress has been made to make existing laws obsolete, especially in a political atmosphere where an African-American occupies the White House."

Is that really what SCOTUS was asked to decide?

Why are the moderators suppressing the free speech inherent in comments relating to Kash's ass lobsters?

71, they are racist because black people don't do well on them.
Please don't ask why recent immigrants from Vietnam and China do better than American-born blacks on these "culturally biased" tests.

Considering that it's a 5-4 decision Sotomayor was not pwned, but only owned.

What could be more biased that having to take a test written in something other than your 3000 character alphabet in a country 7000 miles away.

I've never once heard an asian claim that a test is biased.

anyone else think sotomayor punted because she heard through the grapevine that this case was earmarked by scotus and didn't want to waste her time authoring a complete opinion when someone else planned on doing it? doesn't really reflect on her; she knew her opinion on the issue didn't matter.

Just finished a great book. "Black's I've Met Yachting." It was a quick read.

Haha 75, leave it to CNN to report legal news.

The decision seems right on the merits, the city did engage in disparate treatment discrimination and if they want to use the threat of a disparate impact suit to justify that decision they need to have solid evidence that a DI claim would be successful (more than just the bare statistical showing, why was the test flawed?).

Comment removed by moderator.

77 - I don't think that's being fair to my original question. I would like a genuine answer from an African American or someone who has studied these tests to explain what it is about the test questions (e.g. the type of question, the method of answering the question, whatever) that somehow allows a white person to answer more correctly than a black person. If this question cannot be answered, then we must consider other difficult, but perhaps less savory alternative explanations to the score disparities between blacks and whites.

- 71

Elie at 62,

Ah yes, those "silly written exams that are not an objective measure of anything."

Curse you, tests of knowledge. How do you inquire as to my mastery of firefighting! All I need to do is hold this here hose and point it over there at that big ball of fire. Backdraft? What's a backdraft?

- A Dead, but Diverse, Firefighter

Mystal keeps the ATL interns at the bottom of a well in his basement while he cross dresses in front of a mirror.

This site is full of typical racist white people, just like my grandmother.

Q: Why cant Steve Wonder read?

87-

Your grandmother was full of typical racist white people?

Sounds unpleasant.

A: Cause he's blind, you racist.

This is great news. It's about time for minorities to stop using their skin color as an excuse. Minorities have had all the same opportunities to make it. The president is black for god sakes. It's about time we adopt race neutral criteria for admissions.

Comment devoured by moderator.

Correction 92,

The president is half-black. He's just as much white as black. Plus - surprise! - his black father abandoned him and he was raised by the white side of his family.

Now that militant wife of his, she's definitely all black.

Ahem, 93! Testify!

Is the NBA racist? Should there be affirmative actio for short white players?

Elie, you are a fu*king moron, but nice "Jerry Maguire" reference.

Ahem, 93! Testify!

Watch it, 93, or my baby daddy be sending yo cracka ass to Gitmo!

Freeze: why is Elliot Spitzer being asked on TV about this? Did the lawsuit involve hot white women who were trying to make a few thousand bucks off of high-ranking govermental officials under the cover of "gentlemen's entertainment?"

99,

Sorry for calling you "militant." How about sista soulja?

Proud of America for the first time in my life,

93

I love how cowards can say wat they want on a blog but dont have the balls to say it to peoples face...typical cowards...

-educated and confident minority

Why is white lower-case, but Black, and Hispanic, capitalized?

I think its reverse racism again.

93 -- Nailed it.

101, I really hope you're a flame, but if you're not, I don't think "educated" means what you think it means.

Bernie Madoff has shattered more stereotypes than any one. That is the silver lining in an otherwise tragic episode.

You're right 101.

Now just give me your name, address, and telephone number so we can talk about this further.

- Stupid and Insecure Whitey

Is there a copy of this firefighter test online somewhere? I'm wondering what a white-biased firefighter question looks like. I picture something like this:

Which of the following exclamations, coming from burning building victims, indicates imminent peril:

A) Frank Sinatra: "It's getting warm and so are your cheeks."

B) Lawrence Welk: "It may be uncomfortably warm but my goodness aren't we enjoying ourselves?"

C) Pope Benedict: "Jesus Christ, it's like Hades in here."

D) James Brown: It's HOT!

What's really fascinating about Elie's post is the contempt in which he seems to hold blue collar workers like firefighters. Elie seems unaware of the number of skills, including some skills that are measurable by written exams, that firefighters use every day.

In any event, Scalia nailed it with his dissent - the majority is technically correct, but the elephant in the living room is the conflict between disparate impact law, which basically forces employers to adopt quota systems, and the federal Constitution, which prohibits quotas.

It's also interesting that Obama and Sotomayor have talked so extensively about the role empathy ought to play in judging, while their favorite justices toss empathy out the window in this dissent. Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens care not one bit for the human beings involved in this dispute - there's a racial spoils system that needs uphold'en. Even worse, it's a system which burdens primarily poorer, blue-collar workers (the people who, according to Elie, don't need those read'in and writ'in skills), rather than people in the elite social circles occupied by the Ginsburgs of the world.

71/84:

here is an example. in Texas, the high school kids have to pass a test called TAKS to graduate. according to a teacher i know, last year the TAKS test had questions like:
"Juan's dad went to the Country Club with some friends. What is a Country Club?"
and
"Keisha had 3 gold ingots worth $100 each...."

come on -- i didn't even know what an ingot was. those questions are effed up for high school kids from the ghetto.

101,

I like how you are obviously suggesting that you would beat up anyone who disagrees with you.

Very intelligent/educated/confident.

Dumbass.

"anyone else think sotomayor punted because she heard through the grapevine that this case was earmarked by scotus and didn't want to waste her time authoring a complete opinion when someone else planned on doing it? doesn't really reflect on her; she knew her opinion on the issue didn't matter."

No. Her initial three-judge panel disposed of the case by summary order, without commenting on the substance of the plaintiffs' claims. Second Circuit summary orders of this nature usually go unpublished, and carry no precedential value. Almost all such orders go completely unnoticed--this one only attracted attention because other judges on the Second Circuit caught wind, and once they called for rehearing, only then was a per curiam discussion attached to the order.

The fact that four justices didn't side with the majority is far from a vindication or defense of Sotomayor's handling of this case. GInsburg's footnote 10 suggests that they would have preferred a remand to consider the weighty issues presented by the case--an outcome that Sotomayor's panel didn't even favor.

Also, Elie, it's foolish to think that written exams aren't necessary for firefighter promotions. Firefighters, especially supervising firefighters, need to understand combustion principles, structural dynamics, and the basics of civil engineering, not just "how to fight fires." For example, if firefighters come across a burning building with people trapped, multiple points of entry, and parts of the foundation are crumbling, you need to have a strong knowledge of which parts of the foundation might collapse to make sure the firefighters don't get killed.

101,

We are still waiting for your full disclosure of contact information.

- The Un-hypocrites

Hey 101,

People won't say what they think to your face because you live in a society where politically conservative ideas are often punished, especially with regard to topics such as affirmative action. If we can at least speak anonymously on a blog, that's not a bad thing.

- Iranian Dissident

Elie, what's your beef with 17's comments? 17 says racism is bad, even if against white people. Are you arguing that racism/discrimination is bad unless the policy discriminates against white people? Basically, are you saying that racism against whites = good.

Lafonda and I are very happy, thank you very much!

Tyrone

ain't no way elie really thinks what he wrote at 62. he is just fanning the flame...no way a boy from amityville think that way about our firefighters -

4:

You're a tool.

It's Rule of Law 1, Racail-quota whores 0.

Get a clue. And a new line of work since you're response probably projects your inability to Shepardize a legal memo properly, which means you're coasting on some form of handout to meet someone's private version of what Sotomayor tried to foist on several states without explanation.

4:

You're a tool.

It's Rule of Law 1, Racial-quota whores 0.

Get a clue. And a new line of work since you're response probably projects your inability to Shepardize a legal memo properly, which means you're coasting on some form of handout to meet someone's private version of what Sotomayor tried to foist on several states without explanation.

71 - Its my understanding that certain minorities are raised believing that standardized tests are evil and will discriminate against them. So when said minorities are forced to take those tests, they do poorly on them because they don't believe the test could possibly be fair. Its a vicious circle.

119, then blacks should stop telling their kids that standardized tests are racially biased.

Am I a racist for thinking that black people are racist?

close decision done along the split.

Good job roberts on the UNITY court you hope for. I thought your idol was Marshall. He didn't FORCE people to agree with him. He merely convinced them and likely compromised to do so.

109 - Without reading the rest of your second example, I'm going to guess that it was a math question and it doesn't matter what an ingot is. The first example, on the other hand, seems ridiculous. Probably could make an argument that it is culturally biased, but the real argument is how could that question possibly be relevant to graduating HS. You said this was in Texis, right?

Merit > Racial Politics (I'm looking at you, Obama and SotomayOR)

Read the Scalia opinion on disparate impact vs. equal protection. Normally I don't agree with him but this time he makes brutal sense.

120 - Yeah, they should, but they don't because when they do poorly on the test, they believe it is because the test is unfair, not because its what they've been taught to believe. So they perpetuate the circle because when they do poorly on the test, they tell their kids that standardized tests are evil and unfair.

Its not the test that is unfair, its the whole point that they have to take the test. Taking the test, in and of itself, is considered unfair by blacks. But they won't admit that.

123 = gullible.

123: I don't remember exactly what the second example was, but regardless of whether "ingot" mattered to the answer, what is the point of using the word at all? And yes, this is Texas. I don't think the state board meant for those questions to be culturally biased; I think they are ignorant to what most people's experiences are. And that by calling someone "Juan" in an example, the poor latinos will relate. It is insulting.

Am I racist for presuming that a latino is probably working three jobs and sending 85% of his income to support his children and parents back home while similiarly presuming that a black man sires children at random and works as little as possible to provide for himself and no one else?

Assuming I am, are my beliefs formed on a good faith evaluation of the world around me?

THIS IS A GREAT DAY FOR THIS COUNTRY. To bad that once Obama wins a second term he will be able to change the fragile balance of the court and pack it with more reverse racist liberal mush brains.

But for now, as long as Kennedy holds on to that swing seat ... we at least have a chance at a country where people are judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.

128, because "ingot" is a race-neutral word in the English language that is sometimes used to describe an object and has not been removed from the dictionary. If this is an example of "cultural bias" against blacks, it's pretty sad. And how come Asians and Eastern European immigrants are able to figure out the test instead of whining about it?

128 - Using the name "Juan" is insulting? How about if the entire test referred to John and Mary? Wouldn't the latinos now be upset because there was no one of latino descent named in the test that the latino kids could use as a reference? Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don't.

128 - Using the name "Juan" is insulting? How about if the entire test referred to John and Mary? Wouldn't the latinos now be upset because there was no one of latino descent named in the test that the latino kids could use as a reference? Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don't.

You jackasses are totally missing the point.

The test wasnt an aptitude test, it was a content test. you didnt have to know the meaning of the word ignot unless it was in the test prep material that covered the content of the exam.

The examples of the use of the word "ignot" (which one would think are equally unfamiliar to whites and minorities) are totally irrelevant.

It was culturally biased, if at all, because it required firefighters to go home and study.

128, I presume you're white, based on your comments. You said you didn't know what 'ingot' means. So how is using the word 'ingot' racist again?

A test that mildly discriminates against people with a poor grasp of the English language is not the same as a test that discriminates against blacks. Many people know what 'ingot' means (including blacks!), or at least are able to figure out the context in a math question.

126. You base this on extensive knowledge of black people and what they think but are unwilling to say? I didn't know you could read minds along with being an expert on how black people raise their children.

Anyway, in my experience African-American children aren't raised to think that tests are evil and unfair. I don't think that the concept of tests is evil and unfair.

I just don't think that most tests are "objective," and therefore shouldn't be the sole factor when determining career advancement.
--Elie

I can't tell whether comments like 81 and 88 are made by racist assholes or by liberal trolls (also racist, but against whites so its ok).

The test was prepared by consultants, who specialized in making up test that even Afro-Americans can pass. Duh!

This Texas exam example, assuming that it's real and actually culturally bias, seems too insignificant to generalize that most or even many standardized tests are racist. Having taken many standarized tests (e.g. ACT, SAT, LSAT, GMAT) as I'm sure many others on ATL have as well, I have not seen anything like the Texas example at all. I think my original question stands: in what way are standardized tests racist? The SCOTUS case quoted a professor from Boston College who specifically studies these kinds of tests and their potential racial bias. The prof. indicated that the fire fighter exam was in line with all other standardized tests and the disparity these tests genrally have between blacks and whites. But there was nothing about WHAT in the test make such a despairty in the first place.

Not an Elie fan but have to agree with him in 136.

Will these mouth-breathing conservatives get it through their thick skulls that ethnically-diverse neighborhoods have less fires? And that minority advancement makes a town fire-resistent? Go back to Faux News you racist bastards.

"I just don't think that most tests are "objective," and therefore shouldn't be the sole factor when determining career advancement. "

I think we're all still waiting to hear how this test wasn't, in fact, objective enough for minorities to have done better.

Regardless of that fact, as I understand it, the "results" were not solely based on a written test, but also 40% based on an oral examination given by 1 white, 1 black and 1 hispanic. So even if the written test wasn't as objective as it could be, one would think that the oral exam would help make the overall examination objective enough.

136 - Objectivity is subjective

---Allen Woody

45 - based on your quick read you said: "So that's what our Supreme Court is -- a bunch of old people making Constitutional decisions based on their preexisting prejudices."

And Elie agreed with you in a later post. (Kiss of death?)

I guess you missed the fact that this case was decided entirely under Title VII without reaching a constitutional issue.

136/Mystal, the firefighter management tests were not the "sole" factor. Nice strawman argument. They were a minimum threshold that all the blacks failed, but the dyslexic white firefighter who quit his second job to study for the test was able to pass with a high score.
Why don't you tell us why you prefer firefighter management that failed a 10th-grade-level reading basic test on "incident-command skills" and "firefighting tactics," where every one of the questions came from the study material. They're too lazy to study for their job, but at least they're black, right?

Elie/136, yes, I agree that tests are not objective, nor can they ever be. Given that tests are going to be somewhat subjective, this doesn't mean that the test's subjectivity automatically goes agaisnt blacks and favors whites. I would love to see an example of a test questions (that appeared in a major national test such as the SAT or LSAT) where you could clearly see that the question harms blacks and, no matter the black person's intelligence, they would be at a disadvantage in answering the question and whites would not.

"The test should have been three questions: A) What would you do to prevent this exam from catching on fire? B) If this exam catches on fire, how would you put it out? C) Please light this exam on fire without hurting yourself or others."

__________________________________________

Funny how a fat man sitting at a computer can mock the aptitude required to save the lives of others.

Elie, I hope your tiny apartment catches fire, and the rescue workers on the scene can only answer your three alleged questions.

128 - You lost me with the Juan comment. Your response is only slightly less ridiculous than the question itself. I don't know why ingot was left in. They probably thought people knew what it was, but really, who cares why? Sometimes, in real life, we're forced to make decisions about unfamiliar situations even where we don't have all of the facts. Sometimes those facts matter. Sometimes, like here, they don't. Unlike the useless trivia country club question, teaching kids how to apply what they do know to a unfamiliar situation is a skill that HS should be teaching. If these kids, regardless of color, get so lost because they don't know what one word means, it seems like your teacher friend isn't doing his job.

Elie, there are numerous sample ACT, SAT, LSAT, GMAT, GRE, MCAT and Civil Service exams online. Please provide a single example of a test question in any of those tests that fails to meet your definition of "objective".

Yeah, I thought so...

149-Racist, subjective MCAT Question:

1. A hockey puck of mass 0.16 kg is slapped so that its velocity is 50 m/sec. It slides 40 meters across the ice before coming to rest. How much work is done by friction on the puck?

(A) +4 J
(B) –60 J
(C) –200 J
(D) –340 J

Unlike most of the commenters, I can claim to have read the opinion and to have had experience in this area as an attorney. This was a promotional examination. The applicants were required to have performed at their present positions for 2 1/2 years. The written test was developed after extensive discussion and review with Department officials, and minority firefighters were oversampled to insure that the test did not unintentionally favor white applicants. There were lists of training manuals, Department procedures and other materials provided to all applicants to aid in preparing for the test. The written test was multiple choice, which prevented disparate treatement in scoring the answers. The oral examiniation was developed and scored through panels of firefighters frin outside of the Department, to minimize favoritism. A majority of the panel members were from minority groups, and they were trained to score the responses in a consistent manner. Other than the outcome of the test, there was no evidence that the test was administered in a discriminatory manner, save from some so-called experts who did not study the facts of the particular test, or simply took the position that it was racist because of the results. One even used his opinion to get business from the City for future examinations.
The dissent's position was essentially there was no discrimination because there was no right to a promotion and that a meritless believe in potential discrimination justifies discrimination. That is sheer sophistry. One wonders what Judge Ginsberg would have ruled in a case where an employer decided not to fill a job position because all of the applicants were minorities.
The dissent's "sympathy" remark reminds me of Judge Posner's observation in a case 25 years ago: "Although man does not live by bread alone, neither does he live by self-esteem alone, and it is small comfort to a person who loses his job as a result of discrimination in favor of a black to be told that he has, after all, the consolation of being white..."

146, that is a ridiculous standard. The truth is, for major standardized tests, you can find questions that women do worse on or that minorities do worse on. Having studied the questions that women (on average) do worse on (which I always got right, btw), they usually involve references to things that are more commonly "guy" things--references to sports, cars, etc.

You know what is interesting? You can also write questions that men (not each and every man, but men as a group) do worse on (I kid you not, but throwing in makeup or cooking tends to do the trick) but those questions do not appear on the SAT. Why? Because they are validated off.

The point is, racially-neutral, gender-neutral, and even culturally-neutral (although that is really tough) IQ and other tests can be written. The way you write such tests is you break down your questions by difficulty, and see if there is a batch of questions that one group gets wrong regardless of difficulty. If there is, you remove the question, because it is not measuring ability, it is measuring a different cultural/backround/class/gender issue.

It's not that women and black people and poor people get the hardest questions wrong, it is that a disproportionate number of women or black people or poor people get some questions wrong that reference things outside of their experience, which creates uncertainty, and means they are more likely to think "I don't know what the question is about" and just guess.

White men do this too, but those questions are usually stricken.

I cannot speak on this test without seeing a copy, and neither can you.

Elie,

There was a time when Italians and Irish were not considered "white". Give it time. Someday we'll get by these phony and divisive government-imposed categories.

Also interesting the way that the one non-white justice went. Does this mean that Equal Protection really means equal protection for all people now?

There was a time when Italians and Irish were not considered "white". Give it time. Someday we'll get by these phony and divisive government-imposed categories.

Also interesting the way that the one non-white justice went. Does this mean that Equal Protection really means equal protection for all people now?

Let's say a standardized test itself is race neutral. Is it a racist test if whites perform better than blacks because whites have more resources to obtain test preparation services, and went to public schools with better resources? Because that's probably what is going on.

(In other words, the answer is not as easy as the racists would suggest: that blacks are dumb, nor as easy as the AA folks would suggest: that the tests are biased and therefore not valid.)

I took a standardized test that asked:

Tyrone needs to make breakfast for exactly three people. Each breakfast must consist of exactly 8 oz of orange soda, two swiss cakerolls and half a pack of Kools. Orange soda costs 2 dolla for a 2-liter bottle, swiss cake rolls are sold for fity cents each and Kools are 6 dolla a pack. (a) How much will Tyrone spend making breakfast? (b) Which purchases are WIC eligible?

I was baffled and disadvantaged. No amount of math training could get me past the unfamilar references.

I agree that standardized tests inherently cannot be objective, there will always be individual perceptions that introduce inherent subjectivity into a question that. BUT, that does not mean that the subjectivity of a standardized test somehow harms blacks more than whites, Latinos more than Asians, or what have you. I don't see anything wrong with calling a spade a spade and say something like: we know that blacks don't perform as well on standardized tests. These tests aren't racist, but we just don't know why blacks don't do as well on them as whites. But we value the diversity and experience that blacks and other minorities have to conbtribue to the working world and classroom that we believe these positives overcome whatever negatives exist from lower exam performance. However, in this firefighter case, I think we have an exception to the general rule: here, having a diverse firefighter group is of lesser value than having a group of well-qualified firefighters who have scored well on the exam that directly deals with life-and-death situations.

152, a small problem with your thesis is that women do better on standardized exams.

It's also funny that recent immigrants from Asia and Eastern Europe seem to be doing ok with test questions that reference things outside of their experience. American-born blacks, with all their exposure to TV, yet can't seem to figure out. Maybe just like in the buddy cop movies, American blacks have never heard of the existence of country music?

But putting that aside, let's see an example of an actual real or sample SAT or LSAT question that is racially biased. Just one.

62 / Elie,

The problem with your proposed questions (A and B) is that candidates would have to answer them. Presumably, this would require a written response. Therefore, your solution is "racist."

156--that is a good point--another problem with some testing is that it sets standards that are easier for advantaged people to meet, but the question is, do the standards need to be that high? Are people who cannot meet those standards unqualified to hold those positions? Let me tell you, I can test like a motherfucker, I could probably ace any examination that police officers and police detectives take, but I would not be a good fit because I just do not play nicely with the other children. The amount of cooperation you need to do in order to be a good lawyer I can swing, but I'm not all in to the whole "partner" thing.

Tests aren't everything, and leadership cannot always be measured by tests.

152, BS, we're lawyers (or law students), if anything we know the LSAT goes out of the way to reference women/minority experiences. I don't give a shit if I get an analytical reasoning question that tells me to line up 8 cookbooks up in some fashion, or 8 baseballs in some fashion, I'll get the question right, experience has nothing to do with it.

Re: the design of the test (and its "objectivity"), the Court says: "At every stage of the job analyses, IOS, by deliberate choice, oversampled minority firefighters to ensure that the results--which IOS would use to develop the examinations--would not unintentionally favor white candidates."

It's not just that black candidates did worse, but white candidates did better. Ponder that!

156, the firefighter test prep materials were available to everyone, and all the questions were from the materials.

I'm African American. I read the Ginsburg dissent and am getting through the majority's opinion now. Some of the factors that RBG used in support of her conclusion that there would be colorable fear of a disparate impact claim should the test results be allowed to stand were (1) the numbers of minority candidates who failed the test at every level (Capt., Lieutenant, etc.), plus (2) the fact that many of the white test-takers had institutional advantages over their minority counterparts, namely access to the test well in advance of minority test-takers because their white friends and relatives had been firefighters for years, sometimes generations; access to study materials for the same reason, etc. She also pointed to the long and tortured history of many of these public sector jobs, particularly law enforcement and fire fighting, where, because of discriminatory intent, minorities were kept out.
Sure, in an isolated incident or two, no harm no foul. But we’re talking about systemic effects. And what many of you junior associate, law student and paralegal trolls who are on here claiming reverse intentional racism don’t realize is that the beef with this test isn’t discriminatory intent, but rather disparate impact. A disparate impact claim doesn’t look at the objective of the alleged discriminatory source, only the result. In other words, the appropriate inquiry is whether there are better ways to implement and manage a challenged (race-neutral) system. That’s what Ellie seemed to be getting at when he talked about a test better geared toward addressing what fire fighter higher ups would be doing, and which doesn’t disproportionately impact blacks and hispanics (so-called underrepresented minorities).
In the end, I think this is a much closer question than a lot of you closeted racists on here would admit. Because one hispanic test-taker beats the odds and passes; or because Barack Obama is our president; or because Michael Jordan is rich and his black offspring are likely well educated, it doesn’t mean that there isn’t still a need for smart Affirmative Action. (How far and in what form that should take, I’m open for reasoned discussion). These preceding examples are straw men because they are examples of EXCEPTIONAL people. Why does that matter? Because we shouldn’t make public policy for the fringe or exceptional people, but rather the majority of people. There have always been brilliant hispanic test-takers; the first black U.S. Senator was elected during Reconstruction, only a few years after the Civil War had ended; and there have always been rich and famous black athletes. Had we just looked at these examples of progress, we never would have implemented Title VII and other safeguards to minority and women’s rights in the first place.
By the way, any of you recognize the irony in the term “reverse racism?” White men like Limbaugh, Hannity, et al love to b*tch and moan about “reverse racism” these days. But they (and you here) undercut the argument that they (you) despise racism in all forms when they (you) fail to ever identity, much less rail against, good old fashion, plan “racism.”
You: “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”
Me: “Perhaps, but doesn’t that assume that you admit that there is wrong in the first place?”

Janet Helms is black. http://www.bc.edu/schools/lsoe/facultystaff/faculty/helms.html

I agree with the commenter who stated this is more about wealth than anything. I have never been on a yacht, likely because I am from the lower-middle class. But I can tell you what a yacht is (but not an ignot). This is the problem with AA, it takes into account race but race is rarely significant. AA presumes that hiring/promotion decisions will be made on race --- and therefore presumes those in management positions are racist.

- nonURM

147 -- If firefighters ever have to come to Elie's apartment, it won't be because of a fire. It'll be because he has become so obese that he can no longer fit through the door. They'll be there with the crane and forklift . . . .

Elie stole my spot at HLS

164: The materials cost $500. Some reported studying 8 hours a day and hiring tutors. Since I'm a woman I'll throw in there potential child care & associated costs. All factors that favor those with resources.
Which is not to say the test is racist or otherwise invalid. Just that it may be inadvertantly testing resources more than aptitude.
/156

During a large part of our country's history (and perhaps even still), whites discriminated against others who were 1/2 or even mostly white because they had a drop of black blood. They just weren't white "enough."

Can someone explain to me how blacks claiming that Barack Obama isn't black "enough" is any less insidious?

Elie, How is a standardized multiple choice test not objective? The results of the test may be different across various socio-economic groups, but that does not mean that the test itself is not objective. Deciding that a standardized test is not objective simply because one group or another had an overall lower result lacks basic logic. That "reasoning" wouldn't fly in any discourse not involving race.

For all the racists out there--here is some analysis showing that when blacks were scoring worse than whites on the SATs, blacks were more likely to get the difficult questions correct, and whites the easier ones. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

"Freedle identified seven factors that seemed to affect the difficulty of a test question. One of the most common was simple word repetition. If an answer had a word in it that also appeared in the question, more test takers chose it; thus a question was easier if it contained a word that recurred in the correct answer, and harder if it contained a word that recurred in an incorrect answer. In reading-comprehension questions another factor was where in a reading passage the key part appeared. If it was at the beginning or the end of the passage, the question was easier than if it was in the middle.

Then he decided he would apply his analysis to ETS's biggest test. He realized that if he looked at how different ethnic groups reacted to the seven factors, he might help to improve the SAT and impress his supervisors, who indicated that rooting out bias in the test was a priority.

Freedle was excited by a new technique called differential item functioning, or DIF (pronounced diff). To see which questions on the verbal section of the SAT produced different results by race, test takers were first divided into groups by score: those who had scored 200, the lowest possible; those who had scored 210; those who had scored 220; and on up to 800, the top score. Each of those scoring groups were examined to see how people of different ethnicities had done on each item of the test.

Using DIF, Freedle began to notice some intriguing results, which turned out to have more to do with word choice than with the seven difficulty factors. At each level of ability, but particularly in the lower-scoring groups, white students on average did better than blacks on the easier items, whereas blacks on average did better than whites on the harder ones. (Whites, though, did better overall.)"

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200311/mathews

More from the same article:

" He cited research showing minority students doing better than non-Hispanic whites on harder math items, which he attributed to the fact that those items used more textbooklike language and "more abstract concepts learned strictly in the classroom." Minority students scored worse on the easier math items, just as they did on easier verbal items, because commoner words were used in those questions."

- 165, you said, "because Barack Obama is our president ... doesn’t mean that there isn’t still a need for smart Affirmative Action ... These preceding examples are straw men because they are examples of EXCEPTIONAL people." I think, while you're right in the other examples you cited, Barack Obama is not a fringe example against AA because his execeptional status took THE MAJORITY OF VOTING AMERICANS to gain that status. Thus, Barack Obama is no longer a fringe example. He is a culmating representation that, by and large, African Amerians are not being held back by whites.

Before someone slams me on it, I meant "invidious," not "insidious." Although insidious isn't completely inapplicable.

-171

1-174 = racist

Guess the Wise Latina with a richness of experience was out to lunch that day.

She left the Dumb Racista with a penchant for staring at the ceiling in charge.

The purpose of such tests is to gauge problem-solving ability. Ditch diggers and hose pullers don't have complex problems to solve. They just do what they're told. However, managers of ditch diggers and hose pullers need to be able to quickly solve real world problems on the scene and under pressure.

Nigerians, Somalians, Brazilians and Argentinians don't have problems with these tests. Only people who have been stripped of their self-reliance, ambition and pride by decades of serfdom on the liberal plantation have problems with higher reasoning cognition.

The Democrats have turned these people into herd animals; milking them for their votes while keeping them docile and dull. That's what ought to stir you to outrage, Elie.

I don't think anyone has a problem with expanding affirmative action to take into account all disadvantaged people, including those from poor backgrounds.

170, the whites who studied for this test, especially the one who hired the tutor, are not what you would think of as people "with resources." They're firefighters. We're not talking about admission of a Suffolk County legislator's son named Elie Mystal to Harvard Law School here.

But yes, this test did favor people who had the time to prepare for the test. That's not racism. The NBA also discriminates against white people who don't have time to practice basketball.

Guess the Wise Latina with a richness of experience was out to lunch that day.

She left the Dumb Racista with a penchant for staring at the ceiling in charge.

- a non-favored minority

1-174 = racist

1-174 = racist

Um, Sotomayor was following precedent. Everyone with brains realized that this was a tough decision.

173: What do they mean by "commoner"? Are they using an antiquated term from the 16th century? Or are they just bludgeoning the English language? I think the second would be plausibler...

Or was that liberalcode for some other word?

This comment number was my LSAT score, even though the subject matter on the LR/RC sections was gold teeth and breakdancing, and Elie still took my spot at HLS. Now I am stuck at WUSTL.

173, so blacks did better than whites on the harder questions. Obviously this proves the test is racist against blacks. Great logic there.
Apparently blacks also can't handle the most common English words, so a test that uses common English words is racist. Ok you win.

-- Smoking It

"the fact that many of the white test-takers had institutional advantages over their minority counterparts, namely access to the test well in advance of minority test-takers because their white friends and relatives had been firefighters for years, sometimes generations; "

Did I misread? I thought this was a whole brand new test. So how does being part of a 'fire-fighter family' provide early access to the test?

Sotomyerror

I went to HLS and all I got was this stupid blog.

188 - Oh, I guess you missed the part that when you have fellow fire-fighting family members you get an advance copy of the test. This happened with my old buddies all the time with the LSAT. They had family members from LSAC and got advance access to the test. It was no big deal.

188, the testmakers used materials from the work training manuals.
It's really quite unfair that when the white firefighters were growing up, their white friends and relatives were teaching them to read using the firefighter department training manuals and so they knew all the answers by heart already.

The real problem here that no one is willing to talk about is the lack of value put on educational achievement in the African-American community. As Chris Rock once put it, you get more respect coming out of jail in the black community than you do coming out of college. This is why other minority groups and even immigrants who's parents come from nothing and don't even speak English tend to do better. Asian parents for instance push their kids hard and impose discipline and a sense of value for academic achievement. Indian kids want to be doctors, American black kids want to be rappers and basketball players. Until this is addressed within the black community itself blacks will continue to lag behind in academic achievement and liberals will continue to want to push this false cure of pushing blacks ahead even though they are less qualified.

Read the Scalia opinion on disparate impact vs. equal protection. Normally I don't agree with him but this time he makes brutal sense.

You have to consider where Elie is coming from with his views here. After all, if a black man can get through Harvard and barely be able to read and write, aren't we expecting too much from a black firefighter?

191 wins. Nice.

193 - Fully agree. My hope is that Obama's example will provide some guidance and inspiriation against this plight.

Regardless of what I think about this opinion, I find it interesting that being overturned once by the Supreme Court renders one unfit to sit on that Court.

Had the races in this case been reversed, with otherwise identical facts, liberals would be the ones howling at her nomination.

Elie,

Regarding 136, you have to be friggin' kidding me. Objective tests are the BEST way to determine if someone if qualified to do something. I challenge you to tell me how a subjective test is more fair to the takers. Everyone is evaluated in the same manner on the same topics by the same standard. How is that any less fair than one where the evaluation is done by someone who by definition will have biases. Riddle me this, why are law school exams graded blind.

-Amazed at your faluty logic

187--You're a dumbass. It proves that the scoring is bullshit, and shows that black students, if anything, are smarter, since they can get the harder questions with more abstract language or more difficult vocabulary words correct. But there scores are lower because the easier questions had the same weight as the harder questions.

- 200, then this suggests only that there is a scoring problem rather than some racism within the test.

Elie = racist

150-

You're either a dolt or a moron. The object could be a widget. The purpose of the question is to test: object n weighing x is traveling at speed y and after traveling z distance is slowed to speed x1. If you are so fucking stupid you can't figure that out I don't want you being my doctor.

-Did well on the critcal reading part of the LSAT

200, ok I get it now. A test that gives equal weight to each question, regardless of difficulty, is racist against blacks.

Thanks for clarifying.
-- 187

Elie, you better explain your comments on "objective" tests not being objective because you're looking like a hack by just putting up a flare without any explanation.

- Management

Affirmative Action takes a hit;

Racism on ATL Abounds;

QUINN REMAINS?

" It proves that the scoring is bullshit, and shows that black students, if anything, are smarter, since they can get the harder questions with more abstract language or more difficult vocabulary words correct. But there [sic] scores are lower because the easier questions had the same weight as the harder questions."

There are enough ways to debate this point, but I don't care if my doctor is the best in the world at his focus of expertise, if he can't wipe his ass after taking a dump and get himself to the hospital in a presentable fashion, he's of little use to me.

BILLY MAYS IS NOT MY LOVER.

Of course blacks are going to discount the importance of standardized tests because they suck at them. White people who screw up the SAT or LSAT do this too.

Here's my take after reading through the opinion. To me, the key sentence is "[t]hat is because the City could be liable for disparate-impact discrimination only if the examinations were not job related and consistent with business necessity, or if there existed an equally valid, less-discriminatory alternative that served the City’s needs but that the City refused to adopt". It's obvious the examinations were job-related and consistent with business necessity. Hard to argue against that. The real question left then was were there any alternative testing methods? Sounds like minimal to no investigation was done on this. The only evidence of record was that of Hornick's telephone conversation. If no record of alternative testing available well sorry New Haven, you lose.

I found Alito's concurrence very illuminating. This Kimber fellow sounds like a mini-Farrakhan. It appears the results of these tests got out and the black community leaders started to scream bloody murder. What is the CSB going to do when it has so much political pressure put on them? The answer is to discriminate.

Anyway, I personally feel the whole Griggs disparate impact holding was the stupidest idea ever. I mean how can you possibly create standards or objectives that don't inadvertently exclude some class of people, white, black, rich, poor, whatever. Take for example, the bar exam which I think is a pretty darned good analogy. Some people have access to BarBri, some do not. Performance on the bar also has little correlation with how you will do as an actual attorney. Anyway, statistics show blacks do not pass the bar exam in the same percentages as whites. See http://www.ble.state.tx.us/one/analysis_0704tbe.htm. Does that mean we are going to throw out all the bar results? No.

IMO, this case was an isolated set of facts where the black community put pressure on the governing body and in the process set off a firestorm which blew up in their face with this SCOTUS decision.

White Power, Black Power, Brown Power, Yellow Power, Red Power. I guess the White Power won this one, but it won't take Congress and Obama long to change the result through further legislation. After all, it would be a real shame to expect Blacks to be able to compete on the basis of objective data, as opposed to the color of their skin.

200- When calling someone a dumbass, you should not use the word "there" improperly. Just sayin'.

People who agree with the dissent believe that the test was racist because it seems to favor people who had money to spend on the materials, time to study the information, and family members and connections who could offer support and guidance.

However, if these differences represent the unfairness that people like Elie wish to rectify, then the solution is not to look at the color of the person's skin. Instead, the focus should be on income statements, household status, and family background. People like Elie are merely fooling themselves if they believe that race can serve as an adequate proxy. It can't, and by virtue of factoring in someone's race, we are doing the very thing that Title VII was meant to end.

184 --

"Um, Sotomayor was following precedent. Everyone with brains realized that this was a tough decision."

Judge Jose Alberto Cabranes disagrees with you there--and I'm pretty sure he has brains and is not an anti-hispanic racist. As he wrote in his forceful dissent to the Second Circuit's decision not to hear this case en banc:

"This appeal raises important questions of first impression in our Circuit--and indeed, in the nation--regarding the application of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and Title VII's prohibition on discriminatory employment practices. . . . In a path-breaking opinion, which is nevertheless unpublished, the District Court answered this question in the affirmative, dismissing the case on summary judgment. A panel of this Court affirmed in a summary order containing a single substantive paragraph. Three days prior to the filing of this opinion, the panel withdrew its summary order and filed a per curiam opinion adopting in toto the reasoning of the District Court, thereby making the District Court's opinion the law of the Circuit.

The use of per curiam opinions of this sort, adopting in full the reasoning of a district without further elaboration, is normally reserved for cases that present straight-forward questions that do not require explanation or elaboration by the Court of Appeals. The questions raised in this appeal cannot be classified as such, as they are indisputably complex and far from well-settled."

In other words, Sotomayor and her colleagues on the Second Circuit panel were not merely following precedent, but rather they were SETTING precedent. But they way they were setting precedent was in a manner normally reserved for straightforward cases. So, if you really believe that "[e]veryone with brains realized that this was a tough decision," then I guess you're assuming that Sotomayor and the two other judges on the panel are brainless.

In light of Justice Kennedy's opinion, I might agree with you there.

174, 165 here. I think your analysis is mistaken. Just because it took a majority of Americans to ultimately elect President Obama doesn’t mean that he isn’t exceptional. I think it is precisely because he was able to get the majority of Americans to vote for him that he is exceptional.
For that reason, Obama is perhaps one of the most exceptional Americans to have ever lived! To be sure, since this country’s inception, there have been less than 50 men to have ever been elected president. Of those 50 men, one has been African American. That one African American man, apart from having an exceptional upbringing for African American boys (raised internationally for many of his formative years; the rest by white grandparents in Hawaii), was exceptional in that he was the first black editor of the Harvard law review. But his exceptionality doesn’t end there. Obama was only the Second African American (I believe) ever elected Senator since Reconstruction, and he ran with very little political experience and won overwhelmingly (when you study the electoral map).
I say all this to say that while Obama (and the first family) can be looked to by African Americans and others as inspirational figures, they certainly can’t be reasons why Affirmative Action in any form is suddenly unnecessary. America isn’t post-racial with his election any more than it was when the first black Senator was elected during Reconstruction.
Look at statistics regarding African American and Hispanic birthrates verses those of their non-URM counterparts; look at education; look at housing; look at healthcare; look at overall living conditions. We still have a ways to go, although we certainly have made wonderful progress, as evidenced by Obama’s and Clinton’s serious candidacies, among other recent examples of progress.

174, 165 here. I think your analysis is mistaken. Just because it took a majority of Americans to ultimately elect President Obama doesn’t mean that he isn’t exceptional. I think it is precisely because he was able to get the majority of Americans to vote for him that he is exceptional.
For that reason, Obama is perhaps one of the most exceptional Americans to have ever lived! To be sure, since this country’s inception, there have been less than 50 men to have ever been elected president. Of those 50 men, one has been African American. That one African American man, apart from having an exceptional upbringing for African American boys (raised internationally for many of his formative years; the rest by white grandparents in Hawaii), was exceptional in that he was the first black editor of the Harvard law review. But his exceptionality doesn’t end there. Obama was only the Second African American (I believe) ever elected Senator since Reconstruction, and he ran with very little political experience and won overwhelmingly (when you study the electoral map).
I say all this to say that while Obama (and the first family) can be looked to by African Americans and others as inspirational figures, they certainly can’t be reasons why Affirmative Action in any form is suddenly unnecessary. America isn’t post-racial with his election any more than it was when the first black Senator was elected during Reconstruction.
Look at statistics regarding African American and Hispanic birthrates verses those of their non-URM counterparts; look at education; look at housing; look at healthcare; look at overall living conditions. We still have a ways to go, although we certainly have made wonderful progress, as evidenced by Obama’s and Clinton’s serious candidacies, among other recent examples of progress.

174, 165 here. I think your analysis is mistaken. Just because it took a majority of Americans to ultimately elect President Obama doesn’t mean that he isn’t exceptional. I think it is precisely because he was able to get the majority of Americans to vote for him that he is exceptional.
For that reason, Obama is perhaps one of the most exceptional Americans to have ever lived! To be sure, since this country’s inception, there have been less than 50 men to have ever been elected president. Of those 50 men, one has been African American. That one African American man, apart from having an exceptional upbringing for African American boys (raised internationally for many of his formative years; the rest by white grandparents in Hawaii), was exceptional in that he was the first black editor of the Harvard law review. But his exceptionality doesn’t end there. Obama was only the Second African American (I believe) ever elected Senator since Reconstruction, and he ran with very little political experience and won overwhelmingly (when you study the electoral map).
I say all this to say that while Obama (and the first family) can be looked to by African Americans and others as inspirational figures, they certainly can’t be reasons why Affirmative Action in any form is suddenly unnecessary. America isn’t post-racial with his election any more than it was when the first black Senator was elected during Reconstruction.
Look at statistics regarding African American and Hispanic birthrates verses those of their non-URM counterparts; look at education; look at housing; look at healthcare; look at overall living conditions. We still have a ways to go, although we certainly have made wonderful progress, as evidenced by Obama’s and Clinton’s serious candidacies, among other recent examples of progress.

174, 165 here. I think your analysis is mistaken. Just because it took a majority of Americans to ultimately elect President Obama doesn’t mean that he isn’t exceptional. I think it is precisely because he was able to get the majority of Americans to vote for him that he is exceptional.
For that reason, Obama is perhaps one of the most exceptional Americans to have ever lived! To be sure, since this country’s inception, there have been less than 50 men to have ever been elected president. Of those 50 men, one has been African American. That one African American man, apart from having an exceptional upbringing for African American boys (raised internationally for many of his formative years; the rest by white grandparents in Hawaii), was exceptional in that he was the first black editor of the Harvard law review. But his exceptionality doesn’t end there. Obama was only the Second African American (I believe) ever elected Senator since Reconstruction, and he ran with very little political experience and won overwhelmingly (when you study the electoral map).
I say all this to say that while Obama (and the first family) can be looked to by African Americans and others as inspirational figures, they certainly can’t be reasons why Affirmative Action in any form is suddenly unnecessary. America isn’t post-racial with his election any more than it was when the first black Senator was elected during Reconstruction.
Look at statistics regarding African American and Hispanic birthrates verses those of their non-URM counterparts; look at education; look at housing; look at healthcare; look at overall living conditions. We still have a ways to go, although we certainly have made wonderful progress, as evidenced by Obama’s and Clinton’s serious candidacies, among other recent examples of progress.

174, 165 here. I think your analysis is mistaken. Just because it took a majority of Americans to ultimately elect President Obama doesn’t mean that he isn’t exceptional. I think it is precisely because he was able to get the majority of Americans to vote for him that he is exceptional.
For that reason, Obama is perhaps one of the most exceptional Americans to have ever lived! To be sure, since this country’s inception, there have been less than 50 men to have ever been elected president. Of those 50 men, one has been African American. That one African American man, apart from having an exceptional upbringing for African American boys (raised internationally for many of his formative years; the rest by white grandparents in Hawaii), was exceptional in that he was the first black editor of the Harvard law review. But his exceptionality doesn’t end there. Obama was only the Second African American (I believe) ever elected Senator since Reconstruction, and he ran with very little political experience and won overwhelmingly (when you study the electoral map).
I say all this to say that while Obama (and the first family) can be looked to by African Americans and others as inspirational figures, they certainly can’t be reasons why Affirmative Action in any form is suddenly unnecessary. America isn’t post-racial with his election any more than it was when the first black Senator was elected during Reconstruction.
Look at statistics regarding African American and Hispanic birthrates verses those of their non-URM counterparts; look at education; look at housing; look at healthcare; look at overall living conditions. We still have a ways to go, although we certainly have made wonderful progress, as evidenced by Obama’s and Clinton’s serious candidacies, among other recent examples of progress.

Yes, Michael Jordan's distant relatives were slaves. I feel horrible for he and his progeny that has to grow up in a country where he has to stoop to earning 20 MM per year for throwing a ball through a hoop.

Oh the horror.

Comment removed by moderator.

"A little bird told me that the slave trade had an economic impact. I'm still waiting on confirmation, though."

Then seek reparations from the true culprits: the English, the Dutch and the Portuguese....onm and the African middlemen who sold them to the aforementioned.

Elie still hasn't answered our question about how multiple choice standardized tests are inherently biased.

"48. I have a dream that one day white and Hispanic firefighters will be judged based on their demonstrable skills at fighting fires, instead of silly written exams that are not an objective measure of anything. "

Thats funny because most firefighter entrance exams, to the extent same were givenm initially were predominantly based upon physical aptitude....that is of course, until women and other physically inferior applicants sued to eliminate or pare back same.

Welcome to liberalism.

188, 165 here. I think you are missing something, as did the majority. From Ginsburg’s dissent: “Other firefighters had a different view. A number of the exam questions, they pointed out, were not germane to New Haven’s practices and procedures. See, e.g., id., at A774–A784. At least two candidates opposed to certification noted unequal access to study materials. Some individuals, they asserted, had the necessary books even before the syllabus was issued. Others had to invest substantial sums to purchase the materials and “wait a month and a half for some of the books because they were on back-order.” Id., at A858. These disparities, it was suggested, fell at least in part along racial lines. While many Caucasian applicants could obtain materials and assistance from relatives in the fire service, the overwhelming majority of minority applicants were “first generation firefighters” without such support networks. See id., at A857–A861, A886–A887.”
I don’t think the record bears out that all of the disparities in scores can be attributed to these unequal resources and institutional advantages to the white test-takers. However, it does lend support to the argument that perhaps the test was flawed and deserved a close look – a much closer look at least than many of these knee-jerk racists on here are willing to give it.

Comment removed by moderator.

Comment removed by moderator.

I love AA. We now have a president who got into every level of education because of it (even though he's afraid to admit it) and refuses to acknowledge that he claims to be black even though he's white. But I suppose he confirmed his "blackness" by marrying a black girl.

Oh, and he's not even the first mulatto President. See Andrew Jackson.

"I think you are missing something, as did the majority."

Maybe they didn't miss anything, but saw allegations for what they were, allegations without merit. Your last sentence in your double-post show your stance on this...

Of course whites are going to emphasize the importance of standardized tests, because they historically do well at them. Black people who score well do the same thing.

219 - Yes, Obama's election itself is exceptional. Nobody will tell you that previous black presidents have been elected. We all know this. But the fact that his election required a majority of American voters is noteworthy. Unlike Michael Jordon or Michael Jackson (where you could argue that they happened to escape the general plight of racism due to luck/beating the odds), Obama's election necessarily required the validation of the American people. You can't say, "Oh, Obama sure got lucky. But, America is still pretty racist. He's an exception to the genral rule of racism." By the millions of votes for Obama, he now represents the general rule that there is not racism and you can't just assign him to a fringe case. Is there still instances of racism? Sure. There always will be prejudices in one way or another. But Obama now shows us that America is not racist by the very fact that his election could not have been some wierd national conicidence or fringe case.

"Would this case have been more interesting if New Haven had certified the results of the exam, and then minorities sued the city under Title VII? Random minorities v. City of New Haven would seem more on point about whether or not the firefighter test was discriminatory."

Actually, the case would have been exactly the same -- i.e., determining whether the City should have certified the results. Only a fool would suggest that the legal analysis should have turned on the color of the plaintiffs. Perhaps you should stick to grammatical errors, piss-poor jokes and tubs of Crisco.

"Of course whites are going to emphasize the importance of standardized tests, because they historically do well at them."

Mabe if you live in Scarsdale or Marin County or other limousine liberal haven. My HS's (96% white) average SAT is consistently in the low 800's.

Unfortunately they aren't a politically favored group, so this rather shoddy performance goes unnoticed....and there's no crutch for them in the real world.

220,221, 165 here. Read my original post. Michael Jordan is no more relevant to the discussion of Affirmative Action and how it should work in today’s society than was Jack Johnson (1878 – 1946), the first black heavy weight, to the question of whether there should be anti-lynching legislation at the turn of the century.

He beat white men to a pulp with his fists; slept with white women; drove expensive cars; beat even more white men and slept with even more white women. In other words, he did things that would have gotten other black men killed in most of the country at that time. But because he was Jack Johnson – because he was the exception to the rule – he lived to fight another day.

What’s the moral to the story? You don’t make rules (i.e., legislation, public policy) for the exceptional.

This may come as a shock to you, but most of us black people are not like Michael Jordan. So narrowly tailoring a program to apply to African Americans who are similarly situated to Michael Jordan would be preposterous, too narrow in focus indeed. I think you know that.

This site has become infested with right-wing racists. You liberals are all a bunch of pus_ _ _ _ _. Fight back against these Nazis. Don't let them walk all over you.

I will say this: The Supreme Court is the worst it has ever been in its history. John Roberts is a racist, horrible human being. He seems like a nice guy, but he is the most biased, ignorant justice ever to sit on the Supreme Court. Worst than Rehnquist. Same on you Chief Justice! You are a disgrace to your religion.

"These disparities, it was suggested, fell at least in part along racial lines. While many Caucasian applicants could obtain materials and assistance from relatives in the fire service, the overwhelming majority of minority applicants were “first generation firefighters” without such support networks."

I suppose that "support networks" is the new euphemism for "common sense". You mean to tell me that the black applicants had no access to credit card lines from which to purchase the materials. During the largest credit cycle expansion in the western world? Perhaps they were too busy buying flat screens from Best Buy. Give me a goddamn break.

This entire liberal suppostion that all black folks are just too poor to make it in this country is an insult to every person who ever worked a second job, a summer job, had a paper route, or did anything to earn extra money to pay for school and/or an extra class.

Elie, you are being disingenuous if you honestly believe that all black people are suppressed from getting ahead in this country. The majority of poor folks in this land are non-black and pretty much every ethnic group that has ever come here has prospered and many of them came from conditions far worse than slavery. If you want to blame anyone for the disintegration of the black family, a shameful disintegration which emanated from the reconstruction ERA on through to the Great Society, blame the Democratic enablers who have sold you out for your vote. Do not blame some esoteric notion of a white conspiracy, particularly in an era where every major iconic American symbol is black. Perhaps Michael Jackson rings a bell.

Dear Elie,

ALL civil servants have to take exams before they're promoted in every city in every state. Including firefighters. Unless you're willing to challenge the equality of the whole civil service system (which, by the way, only idiots fail), you can kindly shut up.

"This may come as a shock to you, but most of us black people are not like Michael Jordan."

Neither are most of us "white" people. i think that you'll find that in the immediately prior 20 years, black incomes have risen among highest among all minorities. Moreover, back in the 80s, as you will recall, all "Asians" recieved the benefit of AA. Further, as you will recall, the subset of "asians" which now has the benefit of AA, is much smaller. Why is that? Because they do not need it. Nor do children of black affluence, which includes many more than simply Michael Jordan Jr.

Why a black child of upper income people should be afforded a racial plus factor is entirely beyond me. Ask Ted Wells if he expects his kids to rely on AA.

Mystal's a bigot, plain and simple. Of course, his years at HLS probably gave him the impression that such ideas are respectable.

235 - Why don't we dispense with the labels? "Nazis" and "racists." Yes, there have been a few flames who are purposefully trying to drum up anger with blatently racist comments. But the serious conversative voices in this discussion have been far from racist. I'm sure you can find other grounds to challenge their arguments rather than calling them racists.

Still no response from Elie on how standardized multiple choice tests are inherently biased. Should we take this as a tacit admission?

I suspect that Elie is, in real life.. much like many of my childhood friends who happened to be black. A huge nerd who got beat up by other black kids and most of his friends are non-black. Admit it, Elie.

Why successful black folks feel this innate need to stick up for the losers of their race escapes me. Some people are losers no matter how many plus factors you give them.

I make no excuses for the States of West Virginia, Tennessee, Alabama and parts of Kentucky.

165 here.

228, perhaps you can make the argument that Obama got into Columbia and Harvard Law because of AA. But then how do you explain the Harvard law review? (Sure, its political, but having been law review myself, I can tell you that it is also an academic achievement.) News reports indicate that Obama was a shoe in for a SCOTUS clerkship, but was uninterested. They don’t hand those things out all that easily.

In the same way, you can make an argument that Sotomayor got into Princeton and Yale Law because of AA. But then your bigoted logic begins to crumble when you try to explain away how she also managed to earn valedictorian of her high school class, a full academic scholarship to Princeton, where she graduated at the top of her class, and how she also earned a scholarship to Yale Law, where she graduated having been an editor of the Yale Law Journal. Were all of her credentials/accomplishments likewise attributable to AA?

Also, 229, although Ginsburg cites these allegations, if the majority was interested in finding out whether these allegations were facts, they could have remanded for further findings. They didn’t care about these alleged inequalities, and something tells me neither do you. Since you asked, I don’t know where I come down in this case. But I do know from actually reading the opinion that its not as cut and dry as many of these vulgar knuckle draggers are making it seem.

235's resort to ad hominem demonstrates this: he/she has no argument. And that he/she needs to up the meds.

Standardized testing is sometimes like this but in reverse: http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=219443&title=i-know-black-people-pt.-1

71, 84 - You would like a genuine answer from an African American or someone who has studied these tests to explain what it is about the test questions that somehow allows a white person to answer more correctly than a black person? You know as well as I do that the tests are not really discriminatory, and that society will never ask the less savory questions that you allude to.

No one ever admits it, but the fact is that because America is multi-racial, we really do not want a society where all the leaders are of one race. It causes civil unrest. I think affirmative action has an admirable and important goal. We need to have people believe they have the chance to become president of the United States if they put their minds to it.

238, 165 here. I never made the claim that most white people are like Michael Jordan. Michael Jordan (Oprah too) is usually raised by some rightwing wing nut who thinks he’s being clever and showing how AA is outmoded. Maybe it is, but not because Michael Jordan’s kids don’t need it.

As a practical matter, assuming you’re an average white guy looking for an education and a job in the market place, you don’t have to fear Michael Jordan’s kid. Simply put, he’s not up for the same gigs that you (and I) are up for.

As for your point about Asians (and presumably other non-underrepresented minorities), they don’t get AA now because they don’t need it as a whole. Why they don’t need it, as I’m sure you’re aware, is a complex answer. They are to be applauded for collectively escaping the perils that befall lots of blacks and hispanics in cities and towns across the country.

But this doesn’t negate the fact that AA should exist in some form even today.

247, so why don't we give AA only to poor blacks and Hispanics, who need it, and not to Michael Jordan's kids. Actually, while we're at it, why don't we give AA to poor whites and Asians who live in the ghettos, since they'll benefit the same. Hey, why don't we just get rid of racial categories and provide AA benefits to poor Americans in general.

It turns out most people who oppose AA actually oppose race-based AA, and not remediation based on class. I have a dream that one day we'll judge people not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

Is anyone at Biglaw billing??? The ship be sinking!

247 - Asians do get AA. I am on my firm's diversity committee, and I sift through 10 Asian applicants to every one African American applicant. More often than not the Asian applicant has top marks from MIT/Harvard Law, but still goes through the AA route rather than competing with the rest of us.

246, I’m a real African American. I’m pretty smart with a respected pedigree. I went to an ok law school, but did exceptionally well, law review. Big City fed clerkship (DDC, SDNY, NDCal). Offers at 2 top 5 firms. I’m at a vault top 20 in one of these big cities – senior associate.

I’m not sure about the tests having discriminatory intent, but I do know that there have been respected studies showing tests which disparately impact urms (i.e., race neutral input, but unsavory outcome because of unforeseen circumstances). I also know that other systematic advantages can begin to explain disparities, to wit:

1. Positive reinforcement and group acceptance: doing well on standardized tests is not nearly as well-regarded in black and hispanic communities as it is in white and asian/south asian communities.

2. Unequal resources: test prep course; study time; educational materials at predominately white, asian schools versus predominately black, hispanic schools.

3. Lack of examples: many blacks and hispanics don’t think the “American Dream” is accessible because no one who looks like them, from their communities, has ever succeeded.

But let’s not talk about that. If you think post Title VII terms like disparate treatment and disparate impact, et al are just politically-correct hogwash, and that “society will never ask the less savory questions that [71, 84] alludes to,” why don’t you enlighten us. Don’t beat around the bush.

Why not just come out and say that you think the racial and gender inequalities that still persist today are due to nature, not nurture. In other words, white men are smarter, more capable, and just better than any other sub-classification of persons out there, but we’re all too chicken to ask the “less savory questions” for us to arrive at this scientifically-supported answer?

Never mind the fact that comparing inner city blacks and hispanics with suburban whites is like comparing apples and aardvarks. An apropos test would be to compare inner city blacks and hispanics with extremely impoverished whites – think Appalachia. I’d bet you that the numbers would be much more closely aligned, but for you, 246, that would take too much effort.

250, are the Asian associates at your firm less qualified than the white associates? How do the blacks compare?

247- AA should exist in some form today but we should be aiming to get to a point in the not too distant future when it won't be necessary and can consequently be done away with. In a way, one would expect minorities to resent the existence of AA as it assumes, across the board, that they always need a leg-up.

Political correctness should not force people to shy away from discussing the social cost of AA. While it's easy to dismiss this cost when it's just some white kid from Connecticut who doesn't get into HLS, one might be less willing to ignore it when an incompetent fireman fails to deal with a fire properly and several people, of all different ethnic backgrounds, burn to death.

"perhaps you can make the argument that Obama got into Columbia and Harvard Law because of AA. But then how do you explain the Harvard law review?"

I heard that Harvard uses AA in its law review admissions as well (there are discretionary law review spots reserved). And that the editor-in-chief position is elected (a popularity contest) rather merit based. If this is true, then Obama may have AA and charm to thank for those "achievements" as well.

Are there any Harvard grads out there that can confirm this or have I been misinformed?

247- AA should exist in some form today but we should be aiming to get to a point in the not too distant future when it won't be necessary and can consequently be done away with. In a way, one would expect minorities to resent the existence of AA as it assumes, across the board, that they always need a leg-up.

Political correctness should not force people to shy away from discussing the social cost of AA. While it's easy to dismiss this cost when it's just some white kid from Connecticut who doesn't get into HLS, one might be less willing to ignore it when an incompetent fireman fails to deal with a fire properly and several people, of all different ethnic backgrounds, burn to death.

Anyone who agrees with this decision is a "right wing nut".

- Argument-less liberal

246, 71/84 here. I actually was asking in sincereity. I'm inclined to believe that standardized tests are not inherently racist. But, I'm open to hear otherwise. So far, I really haven't seen anyone present an example. But, at the same time, I dont' expect readers to go scour their LSAT exams for racist examples. We all do have lives, after all.

Now, your theory is quite interesting. I've never thought about it in this light. America has an increasing socio/economic divide between rich and poor much like Europe. But, the only thing that prevents massive riots here, unlike France, for example, is the perception of economic mobility. Whether this perception is real or not, it keeps the masses from rising up. AA is, perhaps under your theory, just another one of those tools to maintain the apperance of economic mobility.

Where is Eric Holder? Didn't he want this kind of discussion?

Elie hates white people.

254, Harvard Law Review has been using affirmative action for years. They explicitly say so.
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/membership.shtml

They implemented it for the stated reason that they weren't getting enough blacks, Hispanics and women under the merit-based criteria and needed more "diversity."

First, Harvard Law Review maintains a racial component to its admission process, even at the time Obama attended. Moreover, that Obama excekked at Harvard does not detract from how he got there, via Occidental/Columbia. If AA is such a masterful program, why is he ashamed to admit that he is a product of it?

Moreover, read the following and advise why Obama was not expelled from checking the black box when he is in fact white.
http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24340

One of the offenders maintained a B average during his time at Yale, so I submit that his expulsion shows the absurdity of the Ivy myth and enhances my view that AA should apply solely to economic need. The reason it does not is because black people would likely never get in.

Does anyone know whether Asian ancestry is a plus, negative, or neutral factor for purposes of law school admissions?

"Lack of examples: many blacks and hispanics don’t think the “American Dream” is accessible because no one who looks like them, from their communities, has ever succeeded."

You have got to be joking. Have you turned on MTV or ESPN lately?

Moreover, your statement that why do we not just admit that white men are more blah blah blah. Ho wyou cannot see that having to lower standards tio accept more minorities is not in itself a tacit admission that white men are more blah blah, then I cannot help you.

Moreover, your shitty law school and BS law review stance reflect that you got your job from AA. Nothing wrong with that. I went to a shitty law shcool, clerkship, law review as well but I was not born black.

251, 74/84 here again. When I referened the "less savory" questions, sure, the mental inferiority question could be one such topic. But, I think that this HAS been proven with scientific certainty to not be the case. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't science actually think this was true back in the 1800s? But since has proven this quite wrong. (I personally don't believe that science ever needed to prove this wrong, and common experience suggests that there is no intellectual difference between blacks and whites, even Thomas Jefferson recognized this in his biography). The less savory questions I'm referring to include, the "Uncle Tom" problem of blacks persecuting other blacks for accomplishment (already mentioned by others), the plight of black fathers abandoning their families, etc. These are known problems that we shy away from.

If any group is lacking in American role models, it would be Asians. There are no Asian Supreme Court justices or nominees, and very few prominent Asian-American politicians, pop stars, or ballplayers (non-American Asians don't count). Asian-Americans seem to be doing fine though. Imagine that.

248, this is 247 (the original 165).

I think many reasonable people, including the president, are open to reexamining AA and the new idea that its focus should be economic and not so much race-based. As practical matter, one would think that this approach would have very little impact on the current system because the median income for blacks and hispanics is far lower than whites.

My fear would be this: there are more poor whites than there are blacks, or then there are hispanics, and possibly more even when you combine those two urm groups. If you rework the current AA system so that it is completely race (and gender neutral), then you may bring about the unintended result of replacing blacks and hispanics with poor white guys in jobs and higher ed.

I note also that racism and systematic exclusion was based on race, not economic status. So than how can a remedy to systemic racism (and gender inequality) not take into account race (and gender)?

Returning to my example of the rich and famous black athlete to punctuate the point, Jackie Robinson, the mild-mannered black baseball player who broke the color line more than half a century ago, was denied entry to many of the hotels and restaurants that opened the door to his white teammates not because he was poorer than they were. It was because he was of a different race. Robinson was invited to play by Branch Ricky because he was qualified and because he was black. If Ricky had said we simply are looking for another qualified poor player, and left that decision up to the usual way of acquiring new players, how much of your salary are you willing to bet me that Robinson (or any other black person) would ever have made it to the major leagues?

It would have been far easier for everybody involved and a lot less messy/controversial to preserve the status quo. Similarly, today, many employers (not out of malice, but simply out of habit) would be more comfortable hiring a poor white guy than any black or hispanic guy. Title VII simply is trying to balance the odds somewhat.

Because Asians do not bitch and moan about every perceived slight heaped upon them. Instead, they run their pharmacies and businesses, send their kids to Cornell, marry their daughters to white people and prosper.

They don't give a shit about what white people think of them.

And asians absolutely do not receive the same AA on college/law school admittance as blacks/hispanics, etc. Its now devolved into being a SE Asian, phillipino, Samoan, Eskimo or Aleut.

Koreans, Chinese and Japanese no longer get squat.

"...then you may bring about the unintended result of replacing blacks and hispanics with poor white guys in jobs and higher ed."

if your premise is that it SHOULD be reworked to an economics-based paradignm, why then would it be an UNintended consequence if blacks/hispanics were disproportionately reduced from its purview?

I belive that your bias to having AA apply to blacks/hispanics is clear.

Do Asians receive preferences as "minorities" in law school admissions decisions?

Fuck you AA babies. I grew up poor and I worked my ass off. No reason you can't do the same. Your achievements and abilities will always be called into question (unfortunately, the same is also true of those minorities who actually earned their place).

266, yes affirmative action is a good remedy for systematic discrimination in the 1940s. The year is a different number now. I'm pretty sure the solution today is not to lower your standards, like admitting blacks with average LSAT scores 10 points below the white/Asian average or promoting firefighters who couldn't adequately study for a simple test of work skills.

Yes, if you rework AA to be class-based, you'll get more poor whites displacing blacks and Hispanics. That's the whole point. You're getting rid of preferences for upper-middle-class-and-above blacks and Hispanics. It's curious that you decry this "unintended result."

Talk about a catch-22. If a minority doesn't make it, it's racist. If a minority does make it, well, it's only due to AA so it's still racist. Does no one see, in addition to the patent absurdity, the insult to minorities in that supposedly liberal attitude? That they aren't capable of succeeding on their own. Is anybody really, with a straight fact, trying to argue that Obama made it through Princeton, through Harvard, through Harvard Law Review, to the Senate and to the Presidency of the freaking USA due to AA?

(As a side note, an attorney in my firm went to Harvard with him, and said he's genuinely brilliant.)

I used to work with a black gay guy who went to Brown and second tier law school. He used to complain about being called a N-er ONCE. ONCE.

I am a white kid, grew up in the Bronx and used to get chased home regularly by marauding bands of black kids shouting whitey, cracker, bitch and every other vile word in the book. Oh, I forgot, their ancestors were slaves (while mine were serfs in Austro-Hungary) so we should take a backseat to them. My bad.

actually not even "upper-middle-class" blacks and Hispanics. Class-based AA will displace blacks and Hispanics who are better off than the poor whites. That's the way it should be.
--271

At my top 20 law school, we looked at grades and writing samples to figure out journals, including law review. In my class of 400, there was not one african american in the top HALF grade-wise. We desparately wanted more diversity, but the grade/writing sample combined score resulted in no candidates that met the threshold. It this good? No. Do I feel bad about not taking any african americans? Yes. Was the outcome fair? Yes

The interesting thing is that a lot of these students came from pretty privileged backgrounds. Parents that were judges, partners at law firms, doctors. They had others paying their tuition, had nice appartments and nicer cars. They were not hurting.

I realized from this experience that doing well in law school means working your ass off. This is not about race or privilege. It is about discipline, plain and simpe. And there were plenty of white people that did not make it either.

The work ethic required to make it in law seems pretty race blind to me. Either you can cut it or not. Barack Obama seems to have a pretty great work ethic. The guy won an election by diligently working a plan. Hard to say he is not smart or qualified or that he somehow got cut some slack because he was black. Seems that the opposite was true.

I am a conservative white person.

264, my apologies, but I’m still troubled/confused by your posting. Is it your position that the source of the disparity between blacks/hispanics and whites/asians/south-asians is attributable to “the ‘Uncle Tom’ problem of blacks persecuting other blacks for accomplishment (already mentioned by others), [and] the plight of black fathers abandoning their families, etc.?”

Black fathers, by in large, did not start the mass abandonment of black families until the tail end of the civil rights movement. (Late 1960’s-Early 1970’s. See the Moynihan Report) Most reasonable scholarship attributes this mass migration to disparate incarceration rates, Vietnam lack of socioeconomic opportunities and thus an inability to function as heads of households. This is tragic, to be sure, but it is a symptom, not a cause, of racial inequality. If I’m wrong, then before black men left their families, many of the badges of success between the races should have been much more closely aligned before the late 1960’s, when black men left, correct? But look at statistics. Things were far more stratified when black men were in the home than they are now, when something like 70 percent of black households are without fathers.

As for “the ‘Uncle Tom’ problem of blacks persecuting other blacks for accomplishment,” again, this is a symptom, not the cause of racial inequality. As a general rule, people do well in what they are supported in doing by their peers, family, role models, etc. as such, growing up in the hood or barrio, unfortunately, many negative actions/stereotypes are lauded. (Listen to a rap song recently?)

These things contribute to this cycle of inequality, indeed, but they are not the root causes. And what’s more, AA is so important because it short circuits many of these symptoms/problems.

People who are educated and have well paying jobs, be they black or white or green, have far more stable home lives, and reinforce that ambition and stability in their children, who in turn pass those good traits on to their children…

I’m a prime example.

264, my apologies, but I’m still troubled/confused by your posting. Is it your position that the source of the disparity between blacks/hispanics and whites/asians/south-asians is attributable to “the ‘Uncle Tom’ problem of blacks persecuting other blacks for accomplishment (already mentioned by others), [and] the plight of black fathers abandoning their families, etc.?”

Black fathers, by in large, did not start the mass abandonment of black families until the tail end of the civil rights movement. (Late 1960’s-Early 1970’s. See the Moynihan Report) Most reasonable scholarship attributes this mass migration to disparate incarceration rates, Vietnam lack of socioeconomic opportunities and thus an inability to function as heads of households. This is tragic, to be sure, but it is a symptom, not a cause, of racial inequality. If I’m wrong, then before black men left their families, many of the badges of success between the races should have been much more closely aligned before the late 1960’s, when black men left, correct? But look at statistics. Things were far more stratified when black men were in the home than they are now, when something like 70 percent of black households are without fathers.

As for “the ‘Uncle Tom’ problem of blacks persecuting other blacks for accomplishment,” again, this is a symptom, not the cause of racial inequality. As a general rule, people do well in what they are supported in doing by their peers, family, role models, etc. as such, growing up in the hood or barrio, unfortunately, many negative actions/stereotypes are lauded. (Listen to a rap song recently?)

These things contribute to this cycle of inequality, indeed, but they are not the root causes. And what’s more, AA is so important because it short circuits many of these symptoms/problems.

People who are educated and have well paying jobs, be they black or white or green, have far more stable home lives, and reinforce that ambition and stability in their children, who in turn pass those good traits on to their children…

I’m a prime example.

272, Obama did not go to princeton. His wife did.

273, you and your rich white ancestors were obviously living it up thanks to "white privilege." Be sure to save enough money to pay for the reparations for slavery coming due.

272, Obama didnt go to Princeton. Sotomayor did. And she was valedictorian of her admittedly shotty high school., Cardinal Spellman.

Obama went to Occidental and transferred to Columbia and has never released his transcripts.

That and he;s white.

264, my apologies, but I’m still troubled/confused by your posting. Is it your position that the source of the disparity between blacks/hispanics and whites/asians/south-asians is attributable to “the ‘Uncle Tom’ problem of blacks persecuting other blacks for accomplishment (already mentioned by others), [and] the plight of black fathers abandoning their families, etc.?”

Black fathers, by in large, did not start the mass abandonment of black families until the tail end of the civil rights movement. (Late 1960’s-Early 1970’s. See the Moynihan Report) Most reasonable scholarship attributes this mass migration to disparate incarceration rates, Vietnam lack of socioeconomic opportunities and thus an inability to function as heads of households. This is tragic, to be sure, but it is a symptom, not a cause, of racial inequality. If I’m wrong, then before black men left their families, many of the badges of success between the races should have been much more closely aligned before the late 1960’s, when black men left, correct? But look at statistics. Things were far more stratified when black men were in the home than they are now, when something like 70 percent of black households are without fathers.

As for “the ‘Uncle Tom’ problem of blacks persecuting other blacks for accomplishment,” again, this is a symptom, not the cause of racial inequality. As a general rule, people do well in what they are supported in doing by their peers, family, role models, etc. as such, growing up in the hood or barrio, unfortunately, many negative actions/stereotypes are lauded. (Listen to a rap song recently?)

These things contribute to this cycle of inequality, indeed, but they are not the root causes. And what’s more, AA is so important because it short circuits many of these symptoms/problems.

People who are educated and have well paying jobs, be they black or white or green, have far more stable home lives, and reinforce that ambition and stability in their children, who in turn pass those good traits on to their children…

I’m a prime example.

264, my apologies, but I’m still troubled/confused by your posting. Is it your position that the source of the disparity between blacks/hispanics and whites/asians/south-asians is attributable to “the ‘Uncle Tom’ problem of blacks persecuting other blacks for accomplishment (already mentioned by others), [and] the plight of black fathers abandoning their families, etc.?”

Black fathers, by in large, did not start the mass abandonment of black families until the tail end of the civil rights movement. (Late 1960’s-Early 1970’s. See the Moynihan Report) Most reasonable scholarship attributes this mass migration to disparate incarceration rates, Vietnam lack of socioeconomic opportunities and thus an inability to function as heads of households. This is tragic, to be sure, but it is a symptom, not a cause, of racial inequality. If I’m wrong, then before black men left their families, many of the badges of success between the races should have been much more closely aligned before the late 1960’s, when black men left, correct? But look at statistics. Things were far more stratified when black men were in the home than they are now, when something like 70 percent of black households are without fathers.

As for “the ‘Uncle Tom’ problem of blacks persecuting other blacks for accomplishment,” again, this is a symptom, not the cause of racial inequality. As a general rule, people do well in what they are supported in doing by their peers, family, role models, etc. as such, growing up in the hood or barrio, unfortunately, many negative actions/stereotypes are lauded. (Listen to a rap song recently?)

These things contribute to this cycle of inequality, indeed, but they are not the root causes. And what’s more, AA is so important because it short circuits many of these symptoms/problems.

People who are educated and have well paying jobs, be they black or white or green, have far more stable home lives, and reinforce that ambition and stability in their children, who in turn pass those good traits on to their children…

I’m a prime example.

264, my apologies, but I’m still troubled/confused by your posting. Is it your position that the source of the disparity between blacks/hispanics and whites/asians/south-asians is attributable to “the ‘Uncle Tom’ problem of blacks persecuting other blacks for accomplishment (already mentioned by others), [and] the plight of black fathers abandoning their families, etc.?”

Black fathers, by in large, did not start the mass abandonment of black families until the tail end of the civil rights movement. (Late 1960’s-Early 1970’s. See the Moynihan Report) Most reasonable scholarship attributes this mass migration to disparate incarceration rates, Vietnam lack of socioeconomic opportunities and thus an inability to function as heads of households. This is tragic, to be sure, but it is a symptom, not a cause, of racial inequality. If I’m wrong, then before black men left their families, many of the badges of success between the races should have been much more closely aligned before the late 1960’s, when black men left, correct? But look at statistics. Things were far more stratified when black men were in the home than they are now, when something like 70 percent of black households are without fathers.

As for “the ‘Uncle Tom’ problem of blacks persecuting other blacks for accomplishment,” again, this is a symptom, not the cause of racial inequality. As a general rule, people do well in what they are supported in doing by their peers, family, role models, etc. as such, growing up in the hood or barrio, unfortunately, many negative actions/stereotypes are lauded. (Listen to a rap song recently?)

These things contribute to this cycle of inequality, indeed, but they are not the root causes. And what’s more, AA is so important because it short circuits many of these symptoms/problems.

People who are educated and have well paying jobs, be they black or white or green, have far more stable home lives, and reinforce that ambition and stability in their children, who in turn pass those good traits on to their children…

I’m a prime example.

277, your inability to post ONCE indicates that you are a moron and AA was wasted on you

Subpar performance in the black community will end when black girls stop finding thugs attractive and start favoring the Elie's of the hood.

I suspect that black people honestly believe that if you are white you have the golden key to riches and do not have to work a day in your life for anything.

I regret that they believe this. it is unfortunate because as is exemplified by countless black people, money is out there if you work for it (legally).

I regret that hardworking black people have to put up with ignorant racism and apprehensive feelings of white people, but I sorely wish that all you hardworking black people would stop apologizing for the losers in the black race. You have nothing to be ashamed of. They do.

Asians, especially Asian males, don't receive AA in law school admissions. In fact, even with statistically higher numbers, it's usually tougher for them to get into a given school.

For example, take HLS's demographics where of the 187 Asians, 99 are female and 88 are male. Even more interestingly, despite the massive gulf between Asian and Black LSAT scores, HLS justifies enrolling more Blacks (200) than Asians (187). I'm sure that was just some coincidence having nothing to do with racial quotas...

But I digress, the same Asian male vs. Asian female pattern is even worse with Yale (28 men vs. 50 women) and also true with Stanford (29 men vs. 43 women). Basically, it's to say that because schools want gender balance, and they enroll way more white males than white females, they compensate by enrolling way more minority females than minority males. In other words, if you're a minority male, you get screwed over big time by law school admissions in the name of gender equality (same pattern is true with blacks, hispanics, but to a slightly lesser degree).

I am a white guy but the myth of the black fathers abandoning black families is a very recent phenomenon. In fact, black people were always know to have very tight families, particulalry during slave times. I belive thet the black families were ripped apart by the (not so) Great Society and in fact liberals are destroying the black community dressed in sheep's clothing.

Unless and until blacks recognize, en masse, that (a) white people truly do not give a shit about them, nor should they, and 9b) the only way they are going to advance is to educate themselves much moreso than they have done in the past, the cycle of dependency will continue.

There is no inherent defect in black people other than a severe self-loathing brought about by their mental imagery of slavery and innate feelings of inadequacy resultant of being forced by liberals to suck off the government tit for everything for the past 40 years.

I remind that you can pretty much name an ethnic group that has come here and can be be all but assured that where they came from was far less pleasant than what they've made for themselves here. This is why most immigrants are republicans. Ther children of course go to Yale and Stanford and become liberals having been brainwashed by MTV and NYT.

272, Obama is smart. Great. But why are we talking about Obama? He is exceptional. First black president, and his middle name is “Hussein!” First black editor of the Harvard Law review? (272, it is ironic that with all of his accomplishments, a (presumably white, but correct me if I’m wrong) partner at your firm had to cosign Obama’s “brillian[ce]” to you, as if a white person with those credentials would have to have been similarly cosigned for.)

271, Affirmative Action as we refer to today was not, as you say, “a good remedy for systematic discrimination in the 1940s.” it comes with two emblematic pieces of legislation: the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 – both signed by LBJ. Closer than you thought, huh?

But to your point that “[t]he year is a different number now. I’m pretty sure the solution today is not to lower your standards,” I’m not sure what the solution is now, but you seem to be suggesting that we’re in some post-racial America where things are equal. But what about the Lilly Ledbetter case and the fact that men still make on average a dollar for ever 75 cents or so that women make? Or what about the fact that a white guy with a criminal record is many more times likely to get hired than a black guy with no record? Or what about people with “black sounding names” getting systematically shut out of jobs, housing, healthcare, etc.?

Are all these things remnants of the 1940’s? No. So we can’t leave the solution to these problems back in the 1940’s either.

272, Obama is smart. Great. But why are we talking about Obama? He is exceptional. First black president, and his middle name is “Hussein!” First black editor of the Harvard Law review? (272, it is ironic that with all of his accomplishments, a (presumably white, but correct me if I’m wrong) partner at your firm had to cosign Obama’s “brillian[ce]” to you, as if a white person with those credentials would have to have been similarly cosigned for.)

271, Affirmative Action as we refer to today was not, as you say, “a good remedy for systematic discrimination in the 1940s.” it comes with two emblematic pieces of legislation: the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 – both signed by LBJ. Closer than you thought, huh?

But to your point that “[t]he year is a different number now. I’m pretty sure the solution today is not to lower your standards,” I’m not sure what the solution is now, but you seem to be suggesting that we’re in some post-racial America where things are equal. But what about the Lilly Ledbetter case and the fact that men still make on average a dollar for ever 75 cents or so that women make? Or what about the fact that a white guy with a criminal record is many more times likely to get hired than a black guy with no record? Or what about people with “black sounding names” getting systematically shut out of jobs, housing, healthcare, etc.?

Are all these things remnants of the 1940’s? No. So we can’t leave the solution to these problems back in the 1940’s either.

272, Obama is smart. Great. But why are we talking about Obama? He is exceptional. First black president, and his middle name is “Hussein!” First black editor of the Harvard Law review? (272, it is ironic that with all of his accomplishments, a (presumably white, but correct me if I’m wrong) partner at your firm had to cosign Obama’s “brillian[ce]” to you, as if a white person with those credentials would have to have been similarly cosigned for.)

271, Affirmative Action as we refer to today was not, as you say, “a good remedy for systematic discrimination in the 1940s.” it comes with two emblematic pieces of legislation: the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 – both signed by LBJ. Closer than you thought, huh?

But to your point that “[t]he year is a different number now. I’m pretty sure the solution today is not to lower your standards,” I’m not sure what the solution is now, but you seem to be suggesting that we’re in some post-racial America where things are equal. But what about the Lilly Ledbetter case and the fact that men still make on average a dollar for ever 75 cents or so that women make? Or what about the fact that a white guy with a criminal record is many more times likely to get hired than a black guy with no record? Or what about people with “black sounding names” getting systematically shut out of jobs, housing, healthcare, etc.?

Are all these things remnants of the 1940’s? No. So we can’t leave the solution to these problems back in the 1940’s either.

OBAMA IS NOT BLACK. HE;S HALF BLACK.

HE'S NOT EVENT HE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT. ANDREW JACKSON WAS MULATTO. GOD...

280, and others:

Such quickness to correct my mistake re: Obama's alma mater, but such failure to address any other point. Well, clearly since he went to Occidental/Columbia and not Princeton that clears it all up: he's a barely literate, not-even-even-really-black man who has become the most powerful man in the world due entirely to the rest of the country being forced under AA to vote him into office.

How does being 1/2 white, 1/2 black make you white? I'm offended by that and I'm not even a minority. Seems to me that makes you biracial, which, in any case, is still exciting to see as President.

I'm disturbed at the echoes of southerners turning up their noses post-war to anyone with a drop of black blood, because they were not "white." I guess it's not racist when it's the other way around?

"How does being 1/2 white, 1/2 black make you white?"

Well, how does it make you "black"?

Repeat posters. Hit Post Comment Once. That is all. This site sucks and takes for ever to load. If you want to do what they rest of us do, hit post comment. Let it go a while and then hit stop and then refresh. Your comment will be there.

282, I won’t waste much brain power on you. I’ll just point out how patronizing and bigoted this part of your post is/was:

“I belive thet the black families were ripped apart by the (not so) Great Society and in fact liberals are destroying the black community dressed in sheep's clothing.

Unless and until blacks recognize, en masse, that (a) white people truly do not give a shit about them, nor should they, and 9b) the only way they are going to advance is to educate themselves much moreso than they have done in the past, the cycle of dependency will continue.

There is no inherent defect in black people other than a severe self-loathing brought about by their mental imagery of slavery and innate feelings of inadequacy resultant of being forced by liberals to suck off the government tit for everything for the past 40 years.”

Enjoy your Palin rally!

292: And Cardozo was technically Hispanic, but that wouldn't fit the liberal pattern of "LOOK HOW MUCH AA IS HELPING US ACCOMPLISH!" And also, notice how minority achievements in government are only celebrated when they're LIBERAL minorities (Condi Rice, Powell before turncoating were practically persona non grata). So much for embracing legitimate intellectual / political diversity and the accomplishments of minorities, huh?

The crying baby gets the milk.

Blacks and Hispanics whine for it like a motherfuc*er.

Asians, on the other hand, just take that sh*t and drink it.

- A White Person

Thats it. Everyone's a bigot. I'll enjoy telling my wife that one. Oh, she's black.

You ahole.

And now the cross burners come out.

275,

I would like to know what Top 20 law school you go to that discloses class rank beyond Top 1/3.

As a person on the recruiting committee at large firm, I can't think of one that does.

297--Exactly. And Thomas, to them, is an Uncle Tom, despite his previously being an admitted Yalie liberal, and AA recipient, I might add.

Thats the liberals for you. If you do not agree with them, you are a racist bigot. They are the true racists for most of them grew up in Livingston and never met a black person until they were 23 years old.

301, I'm not 275, but I think you're confusing external disclosure of class rank (for firms, clerkships) and internal disclosure of class rank (for law review, academic honors, etc.). It's pretty customary for law reviews, especially those with an AA policy, to receive statistical data (sans name) of applicants (ex, GPA, rank, gender, and race). Otherwise, they couldn't exactly carry out their AA policy (aside from some sort of diversity statement outing the candidate as a minority), could they?

i think this site is manned by a lone black militant who strongly believes that whites are inferior to blacks. Hence, the consistent claim that everyone on here is a cross burining nazi extremist because we think, gasp, someone should actually buy a study guide rather than a flat screen t.v.

288 = +1000000000

Every nonwhite person needs to read 288's post.

- Not 288

272, no one is addressing it because it has already been vetted a million times. No one is saying Obama only made it due to AA. But it clearly helped. My guess is he caught a break here or there because of his background. I am sure it is no different than the break that Thomas caught or that I caught as a woman. We'll never know why someone gave us a chance, but I am grateful.

The point from my perspective is shut up and fix it. Blacks control their own destiny just like every other minority. If Al Sharpton wants to bellyache about it and commit fraud to sell his view of the world, fine. But don't ask me to cut him any slack anymore. Prove to me your worth it and I will support you. Thus, I can support Obama but I think that Charlie Rangel is the biggest dumbass I have ever had a chance to meet. This is equal. I judge you for your skills. The fact that you are black has nothing to do with it and I am not going to forgive a dumbass or a fraud because they are black.

289, 290, 291:

He didn't have to "cosign." He mentioned it in conversation. And he had to mention it precisely for the same reason this thread exists: were he white, there would be no discussion of his credentials. But because he's not, there is a disgraceful attitude (from many) that perhaps he didn't deserve everything he accomplished, that we need to veryify that he's smart enough. (Too bad no one thought to do that with Dubya.) I mentioned it because it's an actual fact, as opposed to those who have no personal connection to him whatsoever but like to make judgments on how he got where he is.

We are talking about Obama because his Presidency, like it or not, changes the discourse on race in this country. I'm horrifed that people are so desperate to cling to the past that they have to claim he's not black in order to validate their own entitlement complexes. Well, he's not white either, which makes him all the more interesting. Anyone who can't recognize his election marks something new and good for this country apparently does not actually want to move forward--they just want to complain.

275, my school gave to the editors in chief of each journal grades to help pick journal members. I have no idea what they give to law firms and that is not relevant to what the journals get. We all sat in a room and drafted candidates.

Also, at my school, everyone knew what quartile they were in because the registrar gave GPAs for the threshold for each group.

"I'm horrifed that people are so desperate to cling to the past that they have to claim he's not black in order to validate their own entitlement complexes. Well, he's not white either, which makes him all the more interesting."

Ok, so its "horrif[ying]" to claim he is not black, yet you casually aver that he is not white. I believe that you are a racist of the highest order.

My two cents - in the dissent, Ginsburg talks about the disparity at the command level, but I find Ginsburg liberalism a little trite. She decries the lack of minorities in the fire department while turning a blind eye to law firms. Here in Seattle, it is not unusual to find the partnership level at large law firms to 95 percent white. Certainly, at the large New York law firms, the percentage of white partners are extremely disproportionate to the populous. How can she ignore that fact while complaining about the fire department?

303, my school gave names too. The writing sample/bluebook tests were scored blind, the draft was not blind.

306 gets it. Just because someone is a member of your race doesn't automatically mean that person should be defended if he or she does something really stupid or is otherwise acting like a moron -- ex, Jeremiah Wright and all his race baiting.

Even though I wasn't an Obama supporter, if his election brings blacks more into the political mainstream (i.e. away from racial demagogues like Rangel, Sharpton, Jackson), then that's a victory for us all. Our government representatives are supposed to represent us all, not just their individual race, gender, religious communities.

And likewise, if someone (anyone) does sound stupid, call them out on it -- it's just a straight out issue of credibility. Communities are stronger when they self-police, not tolerate & defend the misbehavior of their own.

Public schools in St. Louis were "desegregated" after Brown. Under a "neighborhood school plan" black students in St. Louis continued to attend the most dilapidated, ill-funded, miserable public schools in the state until busing began about fifteen years ago.

Are conservatives that obtuse, ignorant and stupid as to believe that race-based affirmative action is unjustified to remedy such a powerful legacy of discrimination and apathy towards black students in St. Louis?

307: Um, you're telling me liberals didn't savagely bash Dubya's accomplishments at every turn? The whole "he's a moron and only got to Yale, HBS because of legacy, political connections" whining has been going on every since he rose to be the GOP Presidential Nominee before 2000. If anything, he got it much worse than a minority would because it's much more PC to bash legacy admissions (those damn rich people!) than it is to bash AA, even though both groups get ridiculous boosts in admissions.

291, all I was saying is that AA is good at addressing de jure systemic racial discrimination like in the 1940s in your Jackie Robinson example, which is not so common in 2009 (except against whites/Asians). It's curious why you had to bring up someone from decades ago to justify AA today.

Even if there is systemic discrimination, the proper remedy is to expose it and eradicate it, not to lower your standards just for the minorities.
You may have noticed that the remedy for Lilly Ledbetter was for her to sue her discriminatory employer under Title VII. The remedy was not to have the employer give all women a break on performance evaluations and hire female employees with otherwise lesser qualifications than male ones.

309,

My point was that if he's not black, he can't be white either. And my larger point was that if people are splitting hairs over his precise ethnic background, then (1) no matter what color they are, they're hindering, not advancing, equality and (2) they don't really want to see improved race relations and are desperate to reject any reason they might be given to stop complaining.

I voted for him because I agreed with his policies, I was impressed with his intelligence, and I felt he would represent our country well to the rest of the world (though a lot of people here don't really deserve to be represented well...). His background shaped how he became this person I wanted as President (as would be true for anyone), but beyond that it is (and should be) irrelevant.

313, how did affirmative action remedy the funding problems of desegregated public high schools in St. Louis? I thought the remedy was...busing, which someone mentioned.

301, GULC gives top 1/3, top 15%, and top 10% GPA cutoff. I'm pretty sure other T14s give some variation of that.

I am not splitting hairs. I am simply stating the obvious fact. He is not black. Moreover, he is just as white as he is black. His name is bandied about as the "first Black President" when (a) he is not and (b) he is not black, he's half black, and he isn't even the first half-black President. i am still waiting for 60 minutes or NYT to enlighten the public as to this astonishingly obvious historical fact.

The liberals are blind to see the hypocrisy in their own concocted racial designations. A man is black when he is half-black, indian when he is 1/16 indian, hispanic when he is 1/12 hispanic, etc.

318, 275/308 here. My school did that for graduation but not througout law school. We knew each quartile. Editors in chief got 1L grades by name and section. Believe me or not, it does not matter.

I know one black person who hates being called an "African American" because it's a liberal designation that presumes that he wants to identify himself via skin color (African) rather than his nationality (an American). I'm of German dissent but people don't call me a "German American."

Anyone who disagrees with Affirmative Action is a Clansman.

- Joe Biden

321, I'm very glad for our system as opposed to yours. At our school, grading is completely blind. The law review committee never knows your name, nor your GPA while making the decision. Once the committee blindly assigns a score, the GPA is added later as part of that score. Then it's all numerical from there. Of course, I believe there are a few spots permitted for diversity purposes.

The term "African American" connotes secondary status, for "white" Americans are referred to simply as Americans. Yet another instance of liberal compartmentalization of the populace. Their M.O. is to divide and conquer.

315, I brought up the example of Jackie Robinson to show how making AA class based, as opposed to raced based, would likely have modern day examples of Jackie Robinson never getting a shot because it is much easier to give the job to a poorer version of they current workforce than to operate completely outside of the paradigm and hire an “other.” It more to do being uncomfortable than it does with latent bigotry.
I gave current examples in a later post. I said: “But what about the Lilly Ledbetter case and the fact that men still make on average a dollar for ever 75 cents or so that women make? Or what about the fact that a white guy with a criminal record is many more times likely to get hired than a black guy with no record? Or what about people with ‘black sounding names’ getting systematically shut out of jobs, housing, healthcare, etc.? …. Are all these things remnants of the 1940’s? No. So we can’t leave the solution to these problems back in the 1940’s either.”

323,

In my mind, minorities should hate AA the most. You never get judged on your own ability because no ever knows how you made it.

If I were black with great grades in undergrad and law school, I would post those grades every place I could so that I could fight the stigma. Show me a 3.5/3.5 GPA or better and I will believe you did it with your own brain power. Show 2.5/2.5 and I will know how you got where you are.

327 - This is precisely how Justice Thomas felt throughout law school. He once talked about how he purposefully took the hardest classes at Yale to show that he was just as smart and that the stigma doesn't apply to him.

324, we asked for such a system but a very liberal professor associated with the program said no because he wanted slots for minorities and grades/writing kept them out. So we looked for minorities using the face book. Problem was, you had to dive too far into the barrel to find minorities and grade-sensitive journals said no for fear it would dilute the prestige of the journal and would take seats from students that scored higher. It caused a huge ruckus and was very divisive.

That very liberal professor is now the dean of an East Coast law school.

327 here. One point of clarification, if you are white at big law with a 2.5/2.5, I will look askance at that too (son of Latham partner, son of big client, daughter of a judge or some other legacy seat). Meritocracy is the only clean way to go.

329, 324 here. I hear you with those concerns. But, given that academia is largely dominated by liberals, I'm surprised that anyone thought that the journal's prestige would take a hit because of minorities. Usually, the opposite is true. Law schools/journals that have fewer minorities = less prestigious.

327, something tells me that you would think poorly of minorities with or without AA.
Case and point: do you think poorly of white women, the primary beneficiaries of AA since its inception? How many of them got “special advantages” because of their unearned gender? What about the white guy legacies? What about the white guys with lower scores than yours who were in the military, or are physically disabled, or did a lot of volunteer work and got some added credit for that from the admission’s board? Why is the conventional wisdom that the one or two black/hispanic admits took your spot? Why isn’t your knee-jerk reaction that some less qualified white person took your job?
Explore that and then you’ll come to the startling realization that you should be more suspicious of your white counterparts, “because no ever knows how [they] made it” either.
I got another. Can’t you make the argument that prior to AA, the jobs that were lily white (de jure or de facto segregation) were that way because of special set asides for white men? That is, one of the qualifying factors (or disqualifying depending on your perspective), spoken or unspoken, was that you had to be a white man to get hired, elected, admitted, etc? Have you ever explored what kind of psychological head start (i.e., advantage) that conveys?
I always thought about that when people – liberal and conservative – tried to dismiss Obama’s candidacy and success as owing to his race. Sure, people openly voted for him because he is black and voted against him because he is black too – they admitted as much to pollsters. But no one (or none in any appreciable number) voted against, say, FDR, because he was white. But many more voted for him because he was white since they would not have voted for, say, a black woman with the exact same characteristics, positions, background (save for race and gender).

331, well now you have hit on something. At my school, grades played a big role in 3 journals. The way recruiting worked at my school, recruiters could not ask about grades until after an offer was made. So recruiters would use the journals as a way to screen for the better students. If you picked from the three journals, you were pretty much guaranteed that you were getting the top 3rd of the class. People did not want to hurt the ability to get a job by having someone with a 2.75 on their journal. The employers never asked about journal diversity so what did we care? So employment in a soft market trumped other measures of prestige.

332, I AM a white woman and I have already conceded that I probably benefitted and am grateful. My GPA was 3.7. I worked my ass off.

332, Your examples don't come with a stigma. The point still remains: minorities should be particularly unhappy with the stigma that comes about through AA. I think the only reason why the disabled, women, etc., don't have that same stigma is because the AA programs that once supported these groups (if such AA programs really even existed at all to the same degree as they currently exist for blacks) were relatively unknown and not widespread. There really isn't a white woman AA program anymore so people won't look down on women. And, yes, I know many people who look down on white legacies.

Plus, 332, I said in my subsequent post at 330 (before I saw yours) that I was not a big fan of the legacy seats. We had them at my firm. One white managing partner picked the kids of his croneys or hist relatives. I never wanted those summers to get offers and gave them the worst assignments and lobbied against an offer at the end of the summer UNLESS they showed me real talent. They mostly failed.

Is anyone here dumb enough to actually think that blacks are on average as intelligent as whites are on average? Even in the face of mountains of evidence indicating a full 15 point IQ deficit?

333 - Whoa. I attend a T14 and we don't have that private of a policy. While our interview system is GPA blind, the firm gets to have your GPA before making an offer. So, yes, I can see why journal is so important at your school, over and above its normal importance at other schools. It's the only way to distinguish yourself since GPA is out at your school. I'm very curious to know what school you're at, because I've never heard of a school that only releasesthe GPA until after an offer is made. Or, if the school doesn't release GPAs it's because they never had them in the first place.

337, you cannot used IQ tests. They aren't fair measures

Very thought provoking piece on Sotomayor, race, judicial interpretation, etc. below.

http://elitestv.com/pub/2009/06/through-the-sonia-sotomayor-looking-glass

332, your hypothetical revisionist FDR plot is not possible to make sense of--that was a different time and place. Any chance your critique of voting patterns and race might be enriched when you think of the people who might only vote for women or minorities for POTUS?

335, you said: “332, Your examples don't come with a stigma.” Sure they do, just not for you. You only see unreservedness in the few minorities who make it through, and not the many, many more whites, with varying test scores, levels of aptitude, ect., who got in. You assume that the only inequality is the one that benefits the few urms. I wonder why.
Minorities were stigmatized before Affirmative Action. It was called good old fashioned, “no dogs, no Jews, no n*ggers need aply.” That sufficient “stigma” for you? Now after AA, many of the same crowd that benefited from the old system is crying foul and talking about how classifications based on race forces them to stigmatize urms.
Well, what were you doing to us before AA was implemented? If its all the same, and I’ll be stigmatized by you with or without AA, which one do you think I’ll choose.
Now that we’ve dispatched with your silly, empty threats, lets talk about the merits of AA like adults.

335, you said: “332, Your examples don't come with a stigma.” Sure they do, just not for you. You only see unreservedness in the few minorities who make it through, and not the many, many more whites, with varying test scores, levels of aptitude, ect., who got in. You assume that the only inequality is the one that benefits the few urms. I wonder why.
Minorities were stigmatized before Affirmative Action. It was called good old fashioned, “no dogs, no Jews, no n*ggers need aply.” That sufficient “stigma” for you? Now after AA, many of the same crowd that benefited from the old system is crying foul and talking about how classifications based on race forces them to stigmatize urms.
Well, what were you doing to us before AA was implemented? If its all the same, and I’ll be stigmatized by you with or without AA, which one do you think I’ll choose.
Now that we’ve dispatched with your silly, empty threats, lets talk about the merits of AA like adults.

Do conservatives and anti-AA people not realize that white men have been the overwhelming beneficiary of race-based affirmative action in everything from politics to finance to law to all other corridors of power for hundreds of years?

I find nothing more pitiful or pathetic than conservative white men whining and sobbing over their "victimization" at the hands of a "liberal"society. The rank hypocrisy and stupidity makes me want to puke - and I'm a white male.

Just establish ethnic quotas in non-life/death/health fields (to exclude firefighting, nursing, medicine) and be done with this bickering!

Come on 344, you know white males are no monolith and that privilege does not spread to all white males in American society, let alone equally to those who truly experience lasting benefits of "white privilege" (most ATL readers may not realize that poor whites aren't exactly privileged despite what they learned about society in college).

If you are going to slam white males could you at least be specific about which of the 150 million+ you are talking about?

"Do conservatives and anti-AA people not realize that white men have been the overwhelming beneficiary of race-based affirmative action in everything from politics to finance to law to all other corridors of power for hundreds of years? "

Do liberals realize that there are literally millions of "white" men living and struggling in this country whose ancestors had absolutely nothing to do with slavery? And if you retort with the old "well you are the beneficiary of the slavery establishment in this country" then i retort, well, so are you.

Some people are just so inherently infantile that when they see a white man, they see "slaveowner" regardless of whether his family emigrated here 50 years ago or not. This is the inanity that is affirmative action. I.e. that white men, regardless of how long they've been here or what level of wealth or influence they or their family do or do not have, are evil.

AA is a blatantly racist paradigm devised to correct racism. Under AA, Ricky Rubio is an evil white man. Maybe thats why he didnt show up to the TWolves camp.

332: I will take the bait. I concede that I am sexist, racist and judge books by their cover. I live in a large city. A guy gets on an elevator with me at night in a parking garage. Do I stay on? No. I think guy, rapist, get out. I am walking down the street and a group of young blacks are coming my way late at night, do I check my purse, yes. I am on an airplane and a couple get on wearing traditional arab garb, I prepare for a fight. In an orderly society where you have time to know people, none of this matters. But when you only have seconds to think and maybe save yourself, stereotypes can help.

I loved the movie Crash because it really tested this kind of bias in all aspects of society, incuding among minorities. What you get in most people is liberal acceptance of what you know and cautious self-preservation in response to what you don't. Depending on your background, your racism is may be deep because all you know is one type of person (fellow blacks or whites) or it may be more easy to dislodge because you know more different kinds of people. I try to be open about it, but it is hard to talk in such an open way with people perpetually shouting racism, racism, racism. I think most blacks, whites, hispanics, women, men, etc could look in the mirror and see something of a bigot in themselves. Most won't admit it, let alone explore it.

342 and 343 - I'm not sure what specific post you're referring to that used threats. If by "threats" you mean that some blacks feel stigmatized because of AA, then, yes, I guess that's a threat. Clarence Thomas felt that way, and I know many other blacks that feel stigmatized because of AA. I'm not sure what is childish about that argument.

The key distinction between the "no Jews need apply" stigmatization of old (interesting that today Jews don't get the benefit of AA) and the AA of today, is that the old discrimination came about by horrible social traditions that should have never existed but occurred on their own. AA is a government-sponsored program that has taken a sustained national effort with tax dollars and legislation. Plus, you also presume that one will necessarily replace the other. AA stigmatization will necessarily replace the stigmatization of old. "If its all the same, and I’ll be stigmatized by you with or without AA, which one do you think I’ll choose." But, in reality, both can still exist at the same time. So, essentially, you get a double hit. AA does nothing to change people's hearts against racism, while, at the same time, creates a false impression that all blacks needed a special AA boost and would have never made it on their own.

Finally, the tone of your post suggests a "we" vs. "you" mentality. You said, "Well, what were you doing to us before AA was implemented?" I presume you are a URM when you said "us." The current baby boomer working generation and the rising 20 something generation of workers has little to do with the racism of the past. In fact, the young 20 somethings of America are increasingly showing a completely color-blind attitude. I truly feel like our generation is ready to move past racism issue and wants to do away with AA as we get older and some of the older generations are phased out. But, yet, this kind of rhetoric in post 342 perpetuates a racial divide in a way that is offensive to many white people who have never felt any amount of racism and abhor the idea.

Blackpeople need moar better tests. Tests being currently used are biased and heavily favor the whites.

344,

Do tell exactly how white men have been the overwhelming beneficiaries of race-based affirmative action for hundreds of years? Superior intelligence, work ethic, ideas, and character are not the pillars of AA. Favoring "disadvantaged minorities" as a "remedy for past discrimination," on the other hand, is.

I also find it highly ironic that you deign to accuse white men of wielding victimization as a political tool for advancement since this is precisely the methodology used by liberals to promote all aspects of their political agenda. Without victimization, there would be no AA.

Whites, like those white and Hispanic firefighters in New Haven, simply seek equal protection under the law. We don't ask the courts to do us any favors - just don't drag us down because not enough blacks can pass the exam.

Every merit based test under the sun has been assailed for using "pro-white" language and names because some people are too lazy to enhance their grasp of the English language.

Perhaps we should emply slang-based exams and/or have a round robin Wheel of Furtne tournament to dispense merit scholarships.

Every merit based test under the sun has been assailed for using "pro-white" language and names because some people are too lazy to enhance their grasp of the English language.

Perhaps we should emply slang-based exams and/or have a round robin Wheel of Fortune tournament to dispense merit scholarships.

342 and 343, Mormons (much like the Catholics and Jews, but even worse) have been persecuted throughout the 1800s. For example, Missouri had an open execution order from the governor that permitted the murder of any Mormon. This execution order wasn't repealed until the 1970s. The Mormons were literally driven out of New York, Illinois, and Missouri by violent mobs until they were forced to settle in Utah. This despite the fact that Mormon leaders plead with Martin Van Buren to use the federal government to stop the states. Once settled in Utah, the president sent the military to crush the Mormons in Salt Lake City. Certainly years of executing Mormons and driving them out of their homes still has negative affects on them today. But no AA for Mormons. The same goes to the Japanese who were rounded up in concentration camps during WWII.

Thus, if the way groups have been previously treated is the criteria for AA assistance, there are many unrecognized Americans that have endured the pains of old.

355, good point

Serious question to AA proponents: Do you really think that races are athletically equal?

And don't BS me with "Canadians are amazing at curling!" We can argue semantics of "athleticism" until the cows come home. Some sports reward practice and effort more so than raw athleticism; archery comes to mind.

No, I'm talking raw athleticism - power, speed, AND coordination. Sports like boxing, the NBA, or the 200m sprint.

Could it be that instead of discriminatory standardized tests being the problem, there are differences among the races as to aptitude in some areas?

Or, is the NBA really, really racist?

Dear Elie:

I won't call you a fat pussy toad, but can you explain to us why, if diversity is so important, there are no white male editors at ATL?

352: Too bad the Supreme Court passed on deciding Ricci on equal protection grounds. It was a Title VII decision, moron.

339, IQ tests are only biased to the extent that blacks on average are less intelligent. Read Rushton's work. It might enlighten you.

357, people are more likely to concede shortcomings in things such as height, weight, speed, strength (physical characteristics), rather than intelligence. What else separates us from animals?

When you say a group or race is naturally "dumber," it's implying they're a less evolved species of human. Saying a race is slower/weaker doesn't attack what makes them human, but still reeks of racism.

Does Dylan Ratigan scream "machismo" to anyone? God, I'd do him in a heartbeat.

357, you ask (stupidly), “Serious question to AA proponents: Do you really think that races are athletically equal?”
My response: yes, of course I do. Just like I think the races are mentally equal. Race is a fluid construct that has meant different things during different time periods, and in actuality means really nothing at all. (Eastern Europeans weren’t “white” at the turn of the century; Jews weren’t “white” well into the second half of the century.)

As it stands now, blacks tend to succeed in basketball and football, but not so much in, say, hockey or lacrosse. Is this because blacks have some innate ability to run and jump while manipulating a ball, but no ability to run, glide and balance while manipulating a stick? Of course not. Blacks excel in basketball and football because these are the sports that their friends and neighbors play; because these sports are valued in their communities, among their peer groups. In other words, these sports are accessible to them, and they get positive reinforcement from succeeding at them.

At one time, believe it or not, it was thought that blacks could not compete in sports that today they dominate. See Hitler’s miscalculated endorsement of Max Schmeling over Joe Lewis in boxing and track and field athletes in the Olympics; see also the absence of blacks in D-1 college basketball before the 1950’s. Why is this important? Because if your stupid stereotypes about athletic prowess are a bunch of bunk, maybe too your similarly held views of white supremacy in areas where there aren’t many “others” besides white guys are also flawed.

355, Mormons are similarly protected. I’m not sure you’ve started law school yet, but like race, discrimination based on religion is subject to strict scrutiny. (Do your homework.) Thus, 356, it is not a good point.

349, I, like you, am not sure what you’re talking about. I’m glad you like the movie Crash though.

350, I take it as a threat when you indicate that you (and presumably others who think like you) will look at people like me as undeserving of a place at the table because (1) I’m a member of a urm group, and (2) AA exists. Whether Clarence Thomas (or Ward Connelly) has this hang up makes me no never mind. The same people who hate me today because of AA hated my grandfather before AA.

Speaking of AA today, you characterize it as “a government-sponsored program that has taken a sustained national effort with tax dollars and legislation.” But what, then, was de jure segregation? Do “states rights” and George Wallace and Bull Connor and Straum Thurmond ring a bell? How about “all deliberate speed?” Those were “government-sponsored program[s] that ha[ve] taken a sustained [state] effort with tax dollars and legislation.” And even more insidious was de facto segregation, where customs, societal norms and practices reinforced this inequality. So what the hell does all that have to do with you today? You continue to benefit from that system even now. That you don’t see it or feel it is the biggest testament to the existence of this built in advantage.

You are the default. You belong, until you prove otherwise. I am the exception, until I prove otherwise – assuming that I’m even given the chance to prove myself. (Easy example: look at the evening news. See how many times a white suspect is referred to as “a suspect,” while a black suspect is referred to as a “black” or “African American suspect.” Look for similar examples in your favorite tv shows and movies. You hardly notice it because you are the default.)

In the end, I think you’re right that things have gotten much better and they’ll continue to do so as time progresses. We’re AA fits into this equation, if at all, has yet to be seen.

But you all are way too threatened by AA; if it were as successful as it set out to be, every segment of society would look like the numbers in the general population. Hispanics are like 13 percent of the gen pop, but not one Hispanic partner at my V20 firm. Trust me. If you didn’t get the job, there is a far greater chance that you were a casualty of another white person rather than one of the few AA recipients.

My point in 349 is that no one is immune from bias. I can't pretend to be and neither can you. You feel like your life is somehow harder because of race and that AA is fair based on what has happened in the past. I can truly accept that. But my guess is that you have your own biases about white people that make you see ghosts where there are none because it is the expediate thing to do. You are no more pure on this topic than anyone else and being a minority does not give you a right to think about life in terms race and chastise others for doing the same.

"Easy example: look at the evening news. See how many times a white suspect is referred to as “a suspect,” while a black suspect is referred to as a “black” or “African American suspect.” Look for similar examples in your favorite tv shows and movies. You hardly notice it because you are the default"

What on God's green earth would my favorite tv show or movie have to do with fucking anything?

As for my local news, they tend to report the race of all suspects if there is an eyewitness, but back to my main point, What on God's green earth would my favorite tv show or movie have to do with fucking anything? (it deserves repeating)?

Do you just make up shit that supports your lengthy and frankly stupid ("We’re AA fits into .." really?) post?

363, let me try this from a different tack. Why do you think you are right on this very complicated topic and appear to have no room to consider what others might think? Maybe you would have better luck feeling understood if you took the time to try to understand. Instead, you retreat to the age old position that any white that dares to see progress in race relations is trying to diminish or excuse a harsh past. Maybe, just maybe, things are better but you can't accept that because it means that you are accountable for your own state in life rather than being able to rely on the prejudice crutch as an excuse for what you might not like in your life. If I am wrong, then I apologize sincerely.

"You continue to benefit from that system even now. That you don’t see it or feel it is the biggest testament to the existence of this built in advantage."

This is the minority's modern magic bullet theory. White privilege. They can't actually prove it, so instead, they can support a lot of periphery theories that only infer a white privilege. They will never have to back down from it, either, since the theory is non-falsifiable, and has the added luxury of having a (completely made up) security system: "If you don't realize you are privileged because of your skin color, that only proves my point!" What's more, it's specious enough to actually reel in some of the more guilty/stupid white people. It's a perfect theory.

If only it were true.

Exactly 367. It's just like when conspiracy theorists argue for the existence of a conspiracy. Any facts or occurrences that don't fit their theory are dismissed as part of the coverup. Thus, they never actually have to prove anything, and their position is impossible to disprove.

As for 363, if you actually believe that all races are mentally equal, you're at best naive, and at worst, stupid. There is a mountain of evidence against your position, and none for it.

FIRST!!!!!!!!!

364, none of us is immune from bias. But that’s not what AA is about. That is, AA doesn’t start out with the proposition that URM’s are free from bias or animus and whites aren’t. Instead, it is designed to break down deeply entrenched, systematic discrimination by those that hold power.
There certainly are exceptions, but historically, URM’s have not been in positions to use their biases to systematically disadvantage whites because they have not held any appreciable power over the institutions that matter in society. (That is why we’ve started our own [fill in the blanks]). Thus, without government intervention through AA, these things would never have changed.
Today, as things begin to change/progress, we need to reexamine AA to determine its efficacy and shelf life.
366, you ask: “Why do you think you are right on this very complicated topic and appear to have no room to consider what others might think?” That’s not true at all. I think I’m right, but I also make room for respectful disagreement. What I have absolutely no time for are closeted bigots who talk about athletic prowess or the NBA or reverse racism or white men being “forced” to stigmatize URM’s because of AA (See above). I point out the fallacy in these types of arguments whenever I get a chance.
You also say this: “Maybe, just maybe, things are better but you can't accept that because it means that you are accountable for your own state in life rather than being able to rely on the prejudice crutch as an excuse for what you might not like in your life. If I am wrong, then I apologize sincerely.” Look, friend, I have been dealt the hand I’ve been dealt, and I think I’ve done pretty well in spite of/because of certain societal disadvantages. But this discussion isn’t about me. I’m exceptional too. I make in excess of $200k a year, have a JD and a big city fed clerkship, and work at one America’s premier law firms.
365, slowly now. I mentioned the example of tvs shows and labels to undergird my point that white and male is the default, and everything else is an exception to this default. It is hard wired into the way we all approach our daily lives. You have to have the pedigree of a Sonya Sotomayor to withstand scrutiny as a URM, and even she was labeled undeserving and unexceptional by conservative pundits and commentators. But when was the last time that an unexceptional white guy’s credentials were so closely scrutinized? I mean you literally have to be a blubbering idiot like Dubya before anyone will admit that you are there for reasons other than purely merit.
367, you’re right. I can’t prove white privilege any more than I can prove “discrimination.” Both are amorphous, abstract terms. For some, nothing short of a burning cross, the words “nigger” and “kike” or a noose is racist. But of course we know that people are, and have always been far more subtle. (The task is not living on the other end of the spectrum, where the slightest slight is instantly perceived as racism.)
In employment cases, white privilege manifests itself in instances where you have two similarly credentialed applicants, let’s say one Hispanic and one white. The white guy interviewing the two applicants just feels more comfortable with the white guy – he’s from a similar town, his dad worked a similar job, family attended similar church, etc. No animus toward the Hispanic guy, whose parents are immigrants and who doesn’t have a similar background. In isolation, who cares, right? But when you multiple that and similar examples by the tens of thousands, you have a real problem. Do we sit back and do nothing, or do we question whether hiring and admissions practices disproportionately impact one group over the other?

I want all of you idiots who claim that obama is not "black" to be shot. at close range. where the hell do you get off? obama refers to himself as black -- and he is entitled to do so. i suppose he could call himself "white" if he wanted to, but all of you morons know that that would be a complete lie. if it was 1940, he would have been in segregated schools, drinking out of colored water fountains, and sitting on the back of buses -- despite the fact that he has a white parent. many bi-racial people view themselves as "black" because that is the way that society has traditionally viewed them.

and as a practical matter, the majority of african americans in this country have white ancestors. (gasp!!!!). doesn't matter that a parent or a grandparent or a great-grandparent is white...this country still sees people with "mixed blood" as black.

i wish i had timw to go on and on about some of the other stupid posts on this blog. i hope that i don't work with any of you sorry, racist, ignorant bastards.

If blacks spent as much time studying, working and taking care of their kids as they spend posting on blogs trying to justify anti-everyone else racism, er, I mean, affirmative action, there would be no need for affirmative action.

363, "because these sports are valued in their communities, among their peer groups"

This is part of the problem. Sports are overvalued in their communities. The community that thought playing sports was more important than studying is probably the same community that bitches about not getting into a good college or getting a good job.

"Hispanics are like 13 percent of the gen pop"
and I'm sure Hispanics don't make up 13% of the engineering/science population. More likely around 3%. Who do you blame for that? The community that values sports over studying? The profession that demands expertise in math and science? The individual who, while growing up, preferred kicking/throwing a ball around over studying.

translation 373, when you've been beaten with ideas, you resort to little more than name calling. :)

375, nope, just the core fact, the one blacks hate to have to face.

I don't blame anyone 374. I won't change your mind and you won't change mine. I'll rest easy in the fact that AA is still good law. Be well.

377, fair enough. Take care.

Haha 373, nicely done.

Blax need moar better tests cuz whites have privilege and wont let us gets jobs and tests are bad against us. Whites are cracker-racists cuz they hates blax. AA works and fixes stuffs.

423 - You are a dummy.

I can't believe there are people who still believe that blacks don't have inherent advantages on whites and asians athletically. Culture is not as strong as your teacher said it was, think for yourself. Blacks have more testosterone, which gives them more muscles and a huge competitive advantage in the athletics they are cuturally inclined to engage in. Also they have narrower hips and longer legs, which makes for good leaping and running. Why can't you accept this? Because if you did, you would be saying: All races are genetically equal in all ways, except blacks are more athletic. In fact, there are real differences among the races. Read Rushton's rule of three if you actually want to understand our species.

Who's to say that one test can make one man "better" than another at doing a job? Can one firefighter really be better than another? If people die at higher rates in fires, is that really "worse"? "Better" and "worse" on linguistic constructs, like race a social construct, that are really meaningless when you break them down. In the end there are no absolutes, and everything is relative. The truth lies in between.

383,

What the fuck is a "linquistic construct" or, for that matter, a "social construct"??

367,

What do you mean that the theory is "non-falsifiable"? How so?

62 = racist. Please moderaTTTe.

363

You idiot. What are the chances of me, a white man, getting sickle cell, as compared to a black person? Fluid construct my eye. Spare us your bullshit.

363 - Wow, you really missed my point. My conclusion is that Mormons/Jews/Japanese and other groups that had been systematically harmed by the US government and discriminated against by the populous on a level that matches or is similar to African American slavery do not receive AA protection. I'm not talking about strict scrutiny. AA protection, which requires the government to actually fill quotas and affirmatively promote black diversity is different from strict scrutiny, which only prevents the government from doing certain behaviors unless there is a narrowly tailored solution and a very compelling reason. Last time I checked, Mormons/Jews/Japanese do not receive AA law school admissions status, even despite their oppression. But, by your logic, in the sense that previous groups that have been oppressed (remember your "you vs us" language, those groups should receive AA).

387, not to mention that when race is determined through DNA testing, the results line up with the way people self identify 99% of the time. No matter how much the race liberals (nearly everybody, including conservatives) want it to be true, the races are not a social construct, and are genetically distinct, with their own abilities.

363, you make some bad arguments. For example, you argue that people such as Hitler were wrong about the superiority of races in the past therefore there's a good chance we're wrong today.

On the one hand, you have Hitler and pre-1950's notions of race superiority; on the other hand, you have the NBA (which is the example you're responding to). The NBA in 2009 is managed by both whites and blacks, as well as other races, all hungry to make the most profit for their teams. Each privately owned team desires to win rather than advance some notion of race-inclusion or superiority.

Do you see why the domination of a race in the latter context leads to potentially different conclusions than the domination of a race in a pre-1950's era where it was not kosher for blacks to mingle in white society at all?

One more quick point. AA defenders love to argue that the explanation for black dominance in the NBA and NFL is that the black community happens to encourage these sports. This is very misleading. Check out the high school participation numbers of white and black students in basketball and football. Without question, more white students participate in varsity basketball and football. Contrast their demographic sizes. And also without question, the average 15 year old white male would rather be Lebron James than some V20 associate. Sorry, that's reality - ask a nearby frat stud. Given those sample sizes, it's curious that blacks tend to win this contest consistently over the larger white sample size.

In the long run, AA harms African Americans in the specific context of law school admissions. The previous poster (329) is a prime example of the problem. You have the bottom 25th percentile primarily reserved for URMs. (Sure, there are exceptions and some URMs are in the 50-75 percentile of a school. But these are exceptions, and, as a previous URM poster was so fond of arguing, we don't make policy by exceptions.) This group, generally speaking, scores in the bottom of their class on law school exams. Two professors from Berkeley did a study on this very problem and concluded that URMs are being harmed by AA because they poorly perform in law school. For example, 329's school could not reach down far enough to put them on law review. Thus, the only way many of these URMs get on law review or excel in law school is via more AA-type programs in law school that permit diversity admits on law review/moot court or whatever else. The URMs, these Berkley professors concluded, continue throughout law school among peers who are more prepared to academically excel over and above them. They are placed in environments where they cannot succesfully compete. These AA-type programs continue in the hiring process for law firms. (There was a previous ATL post on a URM associate who, while suing her firm, admitted that she was hired for diversity purposes.) But, problem is, this AA program stops with partnership hiring (at least as far as I can tell). That leaves us to ask whether 1) have these URMs lived a life that makes them unprepared for partnership because they were never adequately prepared, and, thus, they are not being promoted to partner? or 2) are the firms (pretty much across the nation) racist and simply don't want to promote URMs to partnership despite being fully qualified?

251, this is 246 here. Your comment was insightful, even if it ended in a personal attack. It is always hard to talk about race without causing offense.

I think your list of reasons for the disparity in test scores is probably correct, or at least part of the answer. But I don’t see how changing test questions will address any of the points you raise. This is the point I tried to make in my post. Don’t change the test; simply implement some sort of Affirmative Action to address the three points you raise.

I do not know the answers to the unsavory questions, but I do know the questions. It basically comes down to this: Either whites are to blame for creating a society in which blacks are disadvantaged, or blacks are to blame for not succeeding in a society in which opportunity abounds. My guess is that it is probably a little of both, but those are the unsavory questions I thought 71 had alluded to.

The less savory questions you raise are certainly not savory. But, you asked them not me, and you stated conclusions with which I do not agree. I do agree that each race has its share of more intelligent people, and each race has its share of less intelligent people. I think Affirmative Action should be a tool used to elevate the intelligent people from all races. I also think that Affirmative Action can only endure if it is structured so that the more qualified people are not losing positions to less qualified people. Such a program will continue to breed resentment. Affirmative Action should probably be aimed at addressing the three problems you listed.

390, you say this: “One more quick point. AA defenders love to argue that the explanation for black dominance in the NBA and NFL is that the black community happens to encourage these sports. This is very misleading. Check out the high school participation numbers of white and black students in basketball and football. Without question, more white students participate in varsity basketball and football. Contrast their demographic sizes. And also without question, the average 15 year old white male would rather be Lebron James than some V20 associate. Sorry, that's reality - ask a nearby frat stud. Given those sample sizes, it's curious that blacks tend to win this contest consistently over the larger white sample size.”

The way that you process information is bizarre, to say the least. Maybe even laughable. “School participation numbers” are irrelevant to determining whether or not doing well in basketball and football are more valued in black and hispanic communities than in white communities, not least because African American and Hispanic drop out rates are around double what they are nationally for whites. Hence, the numbers of black kids who “participat[e]” in high school basketball and football necessarily doesn’t approach that of whites in those same sports.
In general, people strive to do well in things where their success is positively reinforced by the people they like and respect. Moreover, people aspire to do things which they think, because of the experiences of their peers and respected elders, are possible.
Sure, many white kids would love to be Kobe Bryant and Lebron James, but that’s not the point. Many more white kids have accessible examples occupying the ENTIRE SPECTRUM of possibilities – from doctors to lawyers, pro athletes to real estate agents, construction workers, to school teachers, etc. They see people who look like them who successfully fill those roles in virtually every segment of society. Thus, they gain social acceptance by striving to be pretty much anything. By contrast, many black and hispanic kids have as role models drug dealers, gang members, and pro athletes. There are certainly exceptions to this “rule,” far too few to function as a counter trend.

Comment removed by moderator.

388, again, you need to study. "Quotas" under AA are illegal -- for African Americans or for Mormons.

395, I stand corrected on that minor point of quotas. You're correct that quotas (in some contexts) are illegal. But softer AA is permitted. (E.g. companies have the burden of proof to show that statistically they are not discriminating and other lesser forms of AA such as the fire fighters case, which was overturned.)

393, You have a lot of problems in reading comprehension.

I would just like to say that as an African American biglaw associate, I fully support AA.

I'm almost certain AA is the reason I graduated from both high school and college with honors. It is, without question, the reason I scored a 161 on the LSAT, and I'm pretty sure it played a part in the suit I got on sale at Ann Taylor last week.

Being black is f***ing awesome. People just give you stuff; it's crazy. I'm gonna go see if it's AA day at Starbucks.

398, I wish I was bi-racial too

Never knew so many lawyers or wanna be's are so f-ing racist. No wonder blacks are given disproportionately harsher sentences than their more "victimized" white counter parts. Personally, I blame it on the media. I was in highschool and the teacher asked us "what percentage of the population is black here in America". Most of the class said 30% to 40%. We had no idea we were 13% because the media told us that we were involved in EVERY crime and bad statistic known to man. Based on this coverage we knew we had to be near half of the population. Insane.

400- You are generalizing the comments of a small group of posters on this website onto an the entire legal community, which is stereotyping. Congratulations, you're learning.

Just so you know, Elie the black racist is the lone militant anti-white poster. He's too much of a puss to post his diatribes with his own name.

And Elie, be honest, how many times did the black kids beat you up as a kid.

Studies have shown that white women are the greatest benefactors of AA. So basically your hate has been misdirected - as usual.

Also, Princeton did a study which showed that white people WITH drug convictions are called back for second interviews in greater numbers over blacks and latinos WITHOUT drug convictions. Google it.

Studies also show that blacks are the first to get laid off during hard times.

Being black in America is almost like living in the Magic Kingdom.

This case was about race, not gender. It was about an objective test being thrown out because it picked people of the wrong color to be in charge of saving us from death and injury.

This case was about equality. And a misguided attempt at trying to create balance. Blame it on the black guys, but it isn't the black guys who decided not to promote the white guys and the spanish guys. It was the Citys decision.

Whites love complaining about blacks complaining. If you hate the complaining so much why don't you all just STFU? I really don't see how more complaining helps the situation although I might be wrong.

"Studies also show that blacks are the first to get laid off during hard times."

Studies also show that you're not very bright.

"Blame it on the black guys, but it isn't the black guys who decided not to promote the white guys and the spanish guys. It was the Citys decision."

Perhaps you've never been to New Haven?

67 - Thanks for posting that. I'd be willing to bet that if the high-scoring, non-promoted firefighters were black, Ginsburg would never write that they had no vested interested in promotion.

What absurd "logic." Liberals can't think.

21 & 24

Fucking morons.

Hispanic = an ethnicity and not a race.

Hispanics can be white, black, mestizo or a mix.

You know how the this continent was colonized by Europe? Well.... surprise, surprise cock-faces, so was Latin America.

I'm waiting for a gunner to tell me how I put "the" in front of "this".

Come on, do it! You know you want to. Don't fight the predictable urge.

- 409

Studies show white people are needlessly insecure, fear mongering, hypocritical, liars.

Studies show that white people have better mastery of firefighting techniques.

@310

fire fighter is a public/government/at-society's-expense job whereas law (in the sense you are talking about) is a private profession and the firms are privately managed and compete as they will for talent. So naturally the fire fighter case is a higher priority for activist judiciaries.