The application for the fellowship, which started in 2012, used to describe the program as being for first-year law students who are members of “a diverse population that has historically been underrepresented in the legal profession,” including Black, Latino, Native American and LGBTQ+ people.
That's surprisingly illiterate. They don't mean "a diverse population." They mean an insular population. Sometimes when people rely on buzzwords, they lose track of what words mean in relation to other words. It's embarrassing for lawyers to mangle language like that.
Weeks after the lawsuit was filed, all references to race have been removed from the program page on the Morrison Foerster website. The move signals uncertainty about how the fellowship and others like it will hold up to legal scrutiny as litigants try to translate the race-blind Supreme Court stance on college admissions to the private sector.
The program is now framed as recognizing “exceptional first and second-year law students with a demonstrated commitment to diversity and inclusion in the legal profession.”
If you're thinking about mootness, this is why there's something called the "voluntary cessation" doctrine.
The new phrasing of the policy is a conundrum. How could a white student "demonstrate[] commitment to diversity and inclusion in the legal profession"? Isn't that really just another way of saying don't apply? By applying, a white student is implicitly proving a lack of commitment to diversity and inclusion.
पोस्ट्स
४९ टिप्पण्या:
If you're thinking about mootness, this is why there's something called the "voluntary cessation" doctrine.
…but if you’re a law firm overtly and proudly violating the law what are you to do?
I'm wondering if they received an application from Nkechi Amare Diallo, the black woman originally named Rachel Dolezal by 100% genetically white parents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal
If a Supreme Court justice cannot define a woman, who among us can define "Race"? I wanna be an astronaut today. I wanna be a fireman tomorrow. I wanna be a movie star next weekend. I wanna be...
Ministry "Every Day is Halloween"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFPI9b9N6CQ
"That's surprisingly illiterate. They don't mean "a diverse population." They mean an insular population. Sometimes when people rely on buzzwords, they lose track of what words mean in relation to other words. It's embarrassing for lawyers to mangle language like that."
This isn't illiteracy on their part, Althouse. It was deliberately written that way put the best face possible on the discriminatory purpose behind the fellowships. They obviously couldn't write, "No straight white or Asian men are eligible," now could they?
Is AAER trying to "dismantle diversity initiatives" or "end systemic racism?"
Because it sounds a lot like they're trying to end systemic, pre-planned, out in the open, literal, actual, advertised racism.
Do young people know that the Democrat Party has roots founded on racism and slavery? Why is it allowed to continue to exist? Do they know that Democrat George Wallace literally stood in a doorway to keep black children out of public schools? Are we properly teaching the bloody history of the Democrat Party in our public schools?
As for what's next- disparate impact lawsuits.
Nicely done, Professor. It is a conundrum.
jvb
The new phrasing of the policy is a conundrum. How could a white student "demonstrate commitment to diversity and inclusion in the legal profession"?
-----------------------------------------
Chopping off their breasts or genitals. Pulling a Rachel Dolezal. Writing "I will not disparage black people or BLM ever" on a blackboard 1000 times Bart Simpson style. Asking George Soros to stake you in a local DA race.
Many such cases!
Law firms that don't know the law is about as NewAge as it gets.
It's fascinating to me how relatively few fellow boomers I knew back in the day in Berkeley recognize how the things they stood against back then, vis-a-vis civil rights, are now often the things they stand for now. Hatred for LBJ didn't leak into hatred for the Democratic Party, but the hatred for Nixon created millions of reactionaries who don't realize how far the tide has carried them.
By applying, a white student is implicitly proving a lack of commitment to diversity and inclusion.
No; they're demonstrating a commitment to *being* included, possibly also to increasing diversity in whatever traits they themselves bring (other than their race). People should be brave enough to say "racial/ethnic diversity" if that's what they mean.
Diversity (e.g. racism), Inequity, Exclusion (DIE)
Affirmative discrimination.
That said, diversity of individuals, minority of one.
The new phrasing of the policy is a conundrum. How could a white student "demonstrate[] commitment to diversity and inclusion in the legal profession"?
How could any 1st or 2nd year student, no matter their race, do that?
Hoisted by its own petard.
It's embarrassing for lawyers to mangle language like that.
LOL and yet most professional word manglers (politicians) are lawyers to begin with. Even Biden, bottom of the class and all, is technically a lawyer. And yes he is embarrassing too... in many ways.
Do young people know that the Democrat Party has roots founded on racism and slavery? Why is it allowed to continue to exist? Do they know that Democrat George Wallace literally stood in a doorway to keep black children out of public schools? Are we properly teaching the bloody history of the Democrat Party in our public schools?
I try. And the Lefty response to this question is that the political parties switched places in the 60's and all of the racist Democrats became Republicans and the nice Republicans became Democrats. Which is of course nonsense.
Which party supports segregation today? Which party supports laws that treat people differently based on skin color?
who is more diverse?
a poor white man, from western Virginia, that grew up in a trailer..
or a RICH Black Woman.. From San Francisco?
To ask the question is to see the answer. Obviously, the RICH Black Woman will be More Our Type!
"...By applying, a white student is implicitly proving a lack of commitment to diversity and inclusion..."
Disagree. This stuff is all coded now. Magic words will open doors. By applying, a student is declaring his or her "whiteness"etc. to be a false category, and his or her application is proof of courageous commitment to TRUE diversity etc. The smart applicant will know that his or her claims of ancestry or "true inner gender" etc. cannot be directly challenged --they are inner states, self-verifying on his or her say-so-- and if the system's gatekeepers raise any concerns he or she will know how to bully and bamboozle them into acquiescence and even enthusiastic endorsement. And his/her skill at that process will be highly predictive of future success in the law, thus qualifying him or her for the prize.
See? Under the bullshit, the real meritocracy thrives.
If you believe any of the foregoing, you are fair game.
White people are among the alphabet identifying crowd too you know. But really are they “underrepresented” in the profession? How do you know? Must we all wear a badge or ribbon declaring our sexual orientation? Will there be requirements of proof?
Intentionally muddy and misleading language tends to raise more questions by creating confusion? It’s no wonder schools are such an incubator for mental illness nowadays.
Morrison-Foerster is a bunch of Mofos.
www.mofo.com
Texas Governor Rick Perry has something to say about that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4tWZNxnABk
John Henry
It’s virtue signaling, plain and simple. Morrison Foerster has been this way forever. Hypocritical as always too. They spew all the platitudes (and I’m sure some of them actually believe some of the stuff and are trying to do why they think is right), but most are full of shit and they break their arms trying to pat themselves on the back. Limousine Liberals.
I couldn’t stand the place.
Toothless rednecks have been historically under-represented in corporate law...just sayin'.
America is slowly regaining the principles enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the constitution. It is a shame that it has taken this long and that so much harm has been caused along the way.
Effective "quota" systems have been set up throughout the economy and in many fields of practice far beyond the academy. Good — start with the law firms. It's going to take a long time to dismantle this hidden infrastructure, but the process has begun.
Let's restore America to its true promise of equal opportunity. That's where the focus should have been for these past 50 years rather than this chimera of "affirmative action."
That's surprisingly illiterate. They don't mean "a diverse population."
For better or worse, "diverse" has become a euphemism for "Black and Brown bodies" in the language of activists and those who appease them. White people and East Asians are not "diverse," and sometimes neither are Bharatians, depending on their political views.
It's almost impossible to read quite a few modern materials from schools, governments, hospitals, law firms, etc. without drawing that conclusion.
The debasement of language continues.
How could a white student "demonstrate commitment to diversity and inclusion in the legal profession"?
They couldn't. "Diversity" means "non-white".
"They don't mean "a diverse population." They mean an insular population."
They do mean diverse, and they use diverse precisely in its current meaning. They do not mean insular.
"Sometimes when people rely on buzzwords, they lose track of what words mean in relation to other words. It's embarrassing for lawyers to mangle language like that."
Not at all. Progs mangle the language as they please, and they don't do embarrassment.
"The program is now framed as recognizing “exceptional first and second-year law students with a demonstrated commitment to diversity and inclusion in the legal profession.”
IOW, like colleges, they will now do more covertly what they had wanted to out and proud.
If you're thinking about mootness, this is why there's something called the "voluntary cessation" doctrine.
"Isn't that really just another way of saying don't apply? By applying, a white student is implicitly proving a lack of commitment to diversity and inclusion."
Correct. Even easier than colleges fudging the non-racial invocation of race. The very fact of applying rules you out as a white supremacist.
"My sister. My daughter. My sister. My daughter."
A corporate law firm that was accused of racial discrimination
Accused of?
I'd say they were quite proud of it.
Major corporations discriminate against law firms with too many white male faces too, in order to increase their “diversity spend”. I suspect the firms don’t sue because they don’t want to poison the well.
"No; they're demonstrating a commitment to *being* included, possibly also to increasing diversity in whatever traits they themselves bring (other than their race)."
In whose mind? Not the mind of the person making decisions on the applications.
You wanted equality.
This is what equality looks like.
Let's check back in a year and see who gets selected.
“The application for the fellowship, which started in 2012, used to describe the program as being for first-year law students who are members of “a diverse population that has historically been underrepresented in the legal profession,” including Black, Latino, Native American and LGBTQ+ people.
That's surprisingly illiterate. They don't mean "a diverse population." They mean an insular population. Sometimes when people rely on buzzwords, they lose track of what words mean in relation to other words. It's embarrassing for lawyers to mangle language like that.”
???
insular
in· su· lar ˈin(t)-su̇-lər -syu̇-, ˈin-shə-lər
1: characteristic of an isolated people
especially : being, having, or reflecting a narrow provincial viewpoint
2a: of, relating to, or constituting an island
2b: dwelling or situated on an island
insular residents
I'm always amazed at how seriously you legal types take all your legal BS. The purpose of employment law is to give the regime the power to punish those who fail to show sufficient deference. The Biden-Soros regime is not going to come down like a ton of bricks on XYZCorp because XYZCorp discriminates against white males. Individual white males might try, but that is a long, hard uphill slog. But the regime has the money to sue XYZCorp as long and as hard as it pleases. XYZCorp's best course is to knuckle under; hire regime clients, and make donations to regime politicians. Every large corporation faces the same stark imperatives. Bill Gates actually used to think he could run Microsoft without any input from the regime. David Boies taught him different.
Diversity of individuals, minority of one inclusion in the human race. Never again, right?
Diversity in the liberal vernacular implies color judgment, and class-based bigotry, generally. #HateLovesAbortion
Diversity is not about black and white. This is about leverage. This is about an archaic classification of humanity. This is a secular religion.
They obviously couldn't write, "No straight white or Asian men are eligible," now could they?
People of white (i.e. albino), people of peach, people of yellow, etc.
And, with social progress, no natural born feminine females, too.
Isn't the "diverse population" referred to the one "including [but not limited to] Black, Latino, Native American and LGBTQ+ people."
To me that qualifies as diverse, especially considering the breadth of the LGBTQ+ group. Maybe I'm reading it wrong.
In grad school we had a short class on diversity. One of my classmates related a story from his work experience where a white colleague of his got a diversity award because he was an asshole to everyone. It didn't matter if they were black or white, straight or gay (as it was called back then), he treated them all equally.
In whose mind? Not the mind of the person making decisions on the applications.
This is true if and only if "diversity" means "racial/ethnic diversity." If that's what you--and the person making decisions on the applications--means why not say it directly? Instead of diversity (ambiguous, could refer to any variety of any type) just say "racial diversity."
Why the reluctance to be precise? Is racial diversity the only type of diversity worth pursuing?
Is it not possible that a non-BIPOC applicant might believe their inclusion would increase diversity of a non-racial type and therefore be worthwhile? "I might be a white woman but I'm from a tiny Appalachian town and bring a perspective this large CA law firm will find valuable" isn't something such an applicant might think?
If you're old enough, you might recall when the Detroit Pistons were really hot. Won everything. It was said that they were entirely diverse. Except for Bill Laimbeer.
If you're old enough, you may recall when the Detroit Pistons were really hot. Won everything. It was said they were entirely diverse, except for Bill Laimbeer.
I guess blacks just don't get it. The more programs like these, the more the world tells them they just can't cut it unless someone, oh like some white liberal, lets them cut in line.
Really disturbing criminal case out of Canada where the appellate court said it's okay to give lesser sentences to blacks. Doesn't that just say, You blacks just can't control yourselves; you're not quite like the rest of us; you're a little more bestial. We'll give you a sentencing break,
https://hotair.com/david-strom/2023/09/07/canadian-court-black-people-less-culpable-for-crimes-n576384
Wake me up when we get to legacy admissions, and bring my coffee when the athletic scholarships get reviewed by a judge.
““The application for the fellowship, which started in 2012, used to describe the program as being for first-year law students who are members of “a diverse population that has historically been underrepresented in the legal profession,” including Black, Latino, Native American and LGBTQ+ people.”
Kid across the street from us in PHX had one of these scholarships as a 1L. Father is Black, and mother is Hispanic. Maybe the only Black in the neighborhood. At the peak, maybe 9 months ago, their house was probably worth $1.5 million (same floor plan as ours). Father is nice, and the boy friendly, esp after I told him I retired from one of the largest firms in the state. He’ll do fine. Mother is a RE broker, and the son got his RE sales license as an undergrad, so expect that he would fit well in a RE practice group. Mother and daughter haven’t been as friendly.
My understanding is that these 1L scholarships give the students an inside track for being a summer associate at these firms. And if they do wel there, a decent chance at being hired as an associate after graduation. And BigLaw Associates are the LS grads making the really big money after graduation. That’s why this is a big deal - these kids get a big step up, in their career prospects, based solely on their race/ethnicity.
Let's have a society built upon phoniness. Way to go, Mofo. You will never be called to account. How nice for you, and awful for the rest of us.
JaimeRoberto said...In grad school we had a short class on diversity. One of my classmates related a story from his work experience where a white colleague of his got a diversity award because he was an asshole to everyone. It didn't matter if they were black or white, straight or gay (as it was called back then), he treated them all equally.
The Gunnery Sergeant Hartman standard!
Pretty funny that the firm's nickname is MoFo.
Pretty funny that the firm's nickname is MoFo.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा