"'African Americans' are underrepresented, but is that true of, say, Nigerian Americans, who have among the highest incomes of all American groups? 'Asian Americans' overall do very well in educational achievement, but that's primarily because of the success of Chinese, Japanese, Indian, and Korean Americans. Are Vietnamese, Cambodian, Hmong, Bangladeshi, Pakistani Americans well represented in the American legal profession? I doubt it. In the white category, how many Appalachians wind up as attorneys are legal faculty? Cajuns? Yemeni, Iraqi, and Egyptian Americans (contrary to popular belief, all Arabs are counted as white)? If the ABA is truly concerned about underrepresented ethnic groups, is there a sound reason why someone of Argentine or Spanish descent should be of special interest to law schools because they (justifiably) check the Hispanic box, but not someone of Hmong or Yemini descent?"
From "The American Bar Association's Problematic Proposed 'Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion' Rules for Law Schools" by David Bernstein (The Volokh Conspiracy).
Posts
51 comments:
Further subdividing the "Hispanic" world, among Argentinian lawyers, how many are of indigenous descent rather than European?
We could do this all day.
How does the law have any value as a standard, when those most learned in this law seem to regard it as some kind of artistic appreciation exercise. Something different for people depending on the color of their skin, or where they were born, or even better, where their grandparents were born.
The ABA seems to be following the track of the AMA, both destined to make themselves irrelevant while destroying the standards that made them relevant in the first place.
Collectivism is a disease. Nothing, virtually nothing good comes of it.
It's discrimination by IQ at bottom. They just overestimate IQ of some people because of the overall group that they're in has a high IQ.
A key constitutional point.
In Grutter and Bakke, the Supreme Court placed a great deal of weight on deferring to universities' academic freedom to seek diversity for educational reasons. But if the ABA is requiring law schools to pursue diversity, then law schools are no longer exercising independent judgment, but rather are obeying ABA rules to ensure accreditation.
There is something reductio ad absurdum-ish to that argument that delights me. How many left-handed Hispanics with a zip codes that starts with 2, for example, are included? Can a Law School be diverse without such an individual?
Our former president, Barack Obama, son of an American white woman and a Kenyan Black man: would he be considered white or black under the racist DEI rules of the ABA?
This may sound like a rhetorical gotcha question, but honestly it isn't. Racial classification by academia and government is invidious, inimical, inherently racist in function and must not be accepted as a proper means of identifying people for assignment to groups.
The people who work at the American Bar Association are really smart.
They think up really smart rules.
What about Jews?I didn't see them listed. Are they fairly represented. Inquiring minds and all that.
On a related note: Hollywood is suddenly not happy with DEI.
Hollywood's New Rules
The old boys club is dead. But a new one—with its own litmus tests and landmines—is rapidly replacing it. 'This is all going to end in a giant class-action lawsuit.'
Via Bari Weiss.
"What about Jews?"
Plenty on that topic at the link.
The ABA is just trying to implement CRT in the law schools. They're trying to divide people into different camps. Soon, they'll incite race riots among the law school student body about who can claim to be the most underserved and is most deserving of grade subsidies.
The ABA is composed of neobarbarians who think their mission is to sow chaos and undermine civil society, rather than set high standards for law school graduates.
How did it happen that those subgroups are "underrepresented"?
How do the qualifications of those subgroups compare with the general population?
How many members of those subgroups even apply to law schools?
Is the American Bar Association demanding ethnic quotas?
If not, then how does this policy differ from demanding ethnic quotas?
The simplest solution is to rely on admissions test scores. Then replace the ABA with a non-political accreditation board. While I personally think there should not be quotas if there are going to be some sort of quota it should be by test scores. If the minimum standard for admission is X then first accept as many of the prefered that meet the minimum standard then complete the class with other applicants who meet or exceed the minimum.
Of course. Two of the essential - and valid, IMO - criticisms of diversity efforts in their predominant (i.e. leftist) form are:
- The population can be categorized and divided along a practically infinite number of variables. There is no good reason to focus on diversity only along the lines that are most commonly considered (race, sex, sexual orientation).
- Diversity is not a good in and of itself. People have been brainwashed into assuming that diversity is good because it seems fair. But that's ridiculous. There is nothing more fair than treating each person as an individual.
Instead, diversity is a benefit only to the extent that it brings valuable perspectives to the group that otherwise would be missing in a more homogeneous group. But that doesn't mean all diversity provides this benefit. Does it make the group better by adding the perspective of a psychotic maniac? Does it add a missing and valuable perspective to a group of leftists to add another leftist whose prefers romantic partners of the same sex, but otherwise shares the same worldview?
The leftist approach to diversity is so shallow. It's almost as if they hold their beliefs because they are politically expedient.
Yea. When I went to test for rona I was asked if i identified as latino or hispanic, not both, but they gave me a parachute, i could refuse to answer.
It could be that if you could be made to focus on the things that are said to be less important, you will make them more important to the point when they become all that matters... like the yard signs say.
a modest proposal... what If,
Just to Be CRAZY! The law schools tried giving special interest to people that would make Good Lawyers?
i mean, That's CRAZY, right? But, what IF?
Maybe there could be, some sort of examination to determine who
Maybe, a test for Legal SpeciAl interestT ???
You know, have Standards... And see Who can make it over the bar?
WHite Christians make up 60% of the USA and should be at LEAST 60% of the lawyers. Lets have a legal profession that looks like America.
If you try to say it all out loud, it is obviously crazy. At best Victorian race "science," which was always bullshit. Of course Kipling or somebody looked around the world and said: boy, those white people are pretty special. What about the Irish, the rural Scots, and many rural English? So now the woke just try to turn it upside down. A tremendous range from successful to unsuccessful in almost any "group" you can think of: affirmative action for whom? Which group?
You have until 1/21/22 to send your written comments to the ABA per linked article.
I always find this "we need diversity with judges" arguements fake and dishonest. I think I was the only person in the USA shocked that Obama nominated Garland to the SCOTUS when the court already had 3 Jews. IOW, he didn't nominate a black, hispanic, Asian, White protestant, he wasnted to give us 4 SCOTUS judges from an ethnic group that makes up 2% of the population!
YOu either want diveristy or you want merit. You can't switch back and forth just as a sneaky way to way favor one group over another.
Imagine if a Republican POTUS' had put 4 Mormon Judges on the Court. Do you think anyone would notice?
Every time I read a DIE (Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity) statement, it makes me more convinced the MLK was just wrong, the the 60s Civil Rights movement was a fraud, that all talk of "civil rights" is just special pleading by bullies and thugs, and that "racism" is good, "sexism" is good, and the correct behavior is for me to favor white cis het males, and do my best to crush everyone else.
Since if I let them get any power, they will obviously use it to promote their group over me. As such, everyone who doesn't share my characteristics is my enemy.
I'd rather have a world where what mattered was individual merit. But if we can't have that world, then the world I want is "people like me and my allies get everything, and everyone else can FOAD."
I'm not guilty, and I will not pay for anyone else's sins.
The ABA has become a hopeless leftist outfit. The AMA is not far behind.
In the dramas that I have watched in television and movies, about 50% of the judges are Black women and about 20% are Black men. It seems to me that Blacks must be OVER-represented at law schools.
My daughter had to put forth a Diversity Statement to be considered for a professorship at a state school. "Who gives a fuck" was not considered acceptable. But she got coaching from those who are in on the racket. And yes, just like test answers, you can buy Diversity Statements on the internet. American ingenuity and all that.
I propose a law to treat all people as having inherent, inalienable, individual rights. These rights then limit the authority of any body granted any power by the consent of those governed under such consent. They would also provide a social common denominator upon which people interact outside of government and academia.
This neatly resolves all issues of race, ethnicity, gender, sex, height, weight, country of origin, religious belief, wealth, social status, celebrity, and so on to the utmost limit of intersectional diversity inclusion.
You can't get more diverse than individual rights. You can't.
"50% of the judges are Black women and about 20% are Black men."
What about the other 20%? I haven't seen a white male judge on tv or in movies in decades.
The ABA and the state bars have been noxiously liberal for a long time. I hung up my license to get away from all that.
A friend, who is probably well plugged-in with the racket, explained how Diversity Statements work in academia. A candidate's background is investigated to determine if s/he has ever said
or written anything conservative, has made any statements that could be considered patriotic, or has been registered as a Republican. If any of these markers turns up, the next step is "Your Diversity Statement was not satisfactory." And of course, evaluation of Diversity Statements is 100% subjective and 100% political, to ensure the desired result.
I quit the ABA in 1992. They were obviously dominated by Dem Party activists. They had a position on the proper level for the federal discount rate. Why shouldn’t they waste time deciding who is a properly oppressed minority person?
among Argentinian lawyers, how many are of indigenous descent rather than European?
Among Argentinian lawyers, how many are of pure Italian or German descent rather than Hispanic/Mestizo/Indigenous?
Mikee at 09:02 Re Barack Obama and whether he's "white" or "black". The old "one drop" rule comes into play. He's "black".
We are headed back to the worst of antebellum days where every blinking thing is about "race".
Society regresses.
Mike Sylwester, they are over-represented as judges.
In our area we had an infamous case that was never published by the MSM.
https://www.nbc12.com/2021/12/16/circuit-court-rules-suspect-lucia-bremer-murder-be-tried-adult/
This was the initial decison:
https://www.nbc12.com/2021/11/22/very-disappointed-court-denies-motion-charge-suspect-lucia-bremers-murder-adult/
The only thing progs can do is divide.
They don't make anything that people actually want.
The ABA has been off their collective rocker for at least 20 years, hemorrhaging membership until I doubt 10% of the bar are presently members. I quit in 1982 after the free first year of membership expired.
So of course, our friends in the media assiduously publicize the ABA ratings for prospective judges, especially US Supreme Court ones.
What about black Jews?
I was thinking about this sort of thing when I watched that clip someone posted yesterday in the comments of Stacy Abrams realizing on camera that Joe Biden was not going to name her as his running mate. What happened there? Have you noticed that when Democrats choose their tickets, they never put cultural African AMERICANS on them? They put cultural second generation Africans or Indian-Caribbean people of color on their tickets. Did Jesse Jackson ever get to run for President for the democrats? Nope. Not for lack of trying. Stacey Abrams probably realizes that now, too.
How about 1 legged albino hillbillys? I bet there are zero such attorneys.
"What about the other 20%? I haven't seen a white male judge on tv or in movies in decades."
Law and Order used to show quite few such judges on television. It will interesting to see what happens in the rebooted series.
Spanish Americans aren't Hispanic. They are white Europeans like the French, Italians, Germans, etc.
"Instead, diversity is a benefit only to the extent that it brings valuable perspectives to the group that otherwise would be missing in a more homogeneous group."
It's easy to imagine some specific settings in which diversity in the classroom would contribute to the educational experience. That potential benefit is what enabled the courts to uphold affirmative action. However, being essentially lawless and dishonest, the left only really supports affirmative action for the UNconstitutional purpose of redressing what they regard as social inequities. In other words, they support it in an attempt to make society at large look more like what they think it should look like and, more specifically, to make minorities APPEAR more capable, self-sufficient, and successful than they think they would be without the leg-up.
The mantra abbreviation should be DIE, not DEI.
Hispanic is a kind of over-generalized term for anyone from Central or South America. Its a catch-all term. Reportedly, South Americans don’t
like the term hispanic because it lumps lots of distinct cultures and ethnicities together into one vague term. By the current definition, a German or Italian from Argentina qualifies as hispanic. How about looking at the diversity of local regions, say states, for representation.
Where I live in Minnesota, there are very few Italians; so by affirmative action”logic” hiring or admitting more Italians would add to diversity.
I was on numerous faculty search committees over a 40 year period, and we never hired anyone with an Italian or Slavic name. Was there a bias against Italians and Slavic people? There is a strong case for it. In fact, my department never hired anyone from these two groups over this same period.
Personally, the only diversity that really matters is intellectual diversity, but more of that kind would weaken the left and be politically impossible to implement.
Won't someone please think of the Chileans!?
Jaimie - LOL.
we will never reach our true potential. We will never be the America that George Bush, mitten, and Obama what to be, until actual America relects Hollywood America.
That means:
1) Every judge is a sassy black woman
2) Every Admiral is a black or a woman (Hat tip: Star trek TNG)
3) Every rapist or murderer is a white businessman
4) Every Hi-tech Computer Hacker is a black man (or woman)
5) Every Lesbian/Gay are cute, funny, are smarter than anyone
6) Every 120 lbs woman can outfight, outbox, and outshoot every man.
This article is getting at a question which I have not seen fully addressed: If black-skinned people are discriminated against by the (mostly White) power structure, why are black-skinned Nigerians (just to pick one example, and the article refers to others, both in African-American subgroups, and in Hispanic and Asian subgroups), so able to overcome this discrimination and achieve so highly? Possible explanations:
1. Whites with racial bias and power to exercise that racial bias are able to make discriminations among subgroups, so that racialist Whites hate Africans of (say) Chadian descent, but do not hate Africans of (say) Nigerian descent, and those Whites are able to make those distinctions based on physical characteristics in order to implement the discriminatory actions.
2. Certain subgroups (Nigerians who have emigrated to the US in my example) are so extraordinarily exceptional in their performance that it can overcome the racial bias. Meaning that in the absence of this racial bias those groups would be even more over-represented in the data.
3. There is no racial bias, and the differences are explained by differences in ability or performative expectations: Blacks of Nigerian immigrant descent are more highly capable than are Blacks whose background is antebellum slavery. I understand that this explanation is not politically acceptable. And perhaps I could have expressed it in a more acceptable way. But my priority was clarity.
We won't need to kill all the lawyers. They're doing themselves in.
'What about black Jews?'
Where's Sammy Davis, Jr. when you need him?
Post a Comment