Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist

[pop_tort]

In journalism, as long as a minority can put a sentence together, a job is almost guaranteed.

Thanks for taking me out of context:

In journalism, as long as a minority can put a sentence together, a job is almost guaranteed. At some of the bigger papers, where editors have the time and resources to work with reporters, it can be a boost both to the reporter and the newspaper. At some of the smaller papers, where everyone's stressed and man hours are at a premium, the results of hiring an unqualified person based ln the color of his skin can be disastrous.

How was that taking you out of context?  Those were your exact words, and even without the useless fluff that followed, it's still a very extreme, overbroad and unfair statement to make. It takes more than that to be able to WORK in journalism, whether you are a minority or a white person. Yes, lack of experience can be overcome by anyone - whether you are Willy WASPy who got set up with a gig through your uncle or Marcia Minority who got an opportunity through a diversity program.

Yep, sounds like unqualified people who can barely put a sentence together....

I never said barely put a sentence together. You're putting words in my mouth. I said put a sentence together. Period.

No, you said "as long as..." which can more or less be paralled with "barely," or in other words implies some type of minimum. And yes, it's getting retarted that we about both getting this ticky taky over sematics.

At the newspaper I worked at, the top of the resume stack for open positions was reserved for minorities. When I had a position open up, the first calls I made were to minority applicants, because that was what the company wanted me to do. To get into my callback stack, they had to be pretty qualified in the first place, but to assume that a white person would automatically get hired over a person of color with similar qualifications is an erroneous assumption. The white person would have a hard time getting an interview, let alone get hired.

Yeah but how much of that pile had minority applicants in it? It would be one thing if it was 50%-50%... but if you've got 5-10 minority applicants and the other 90-95 are white it seems like a different story, especially if the company has some kind of public commitment to diversity. What about the white people competing against each other for interviews? And just because a person of color gets an interview, that doesn't automatically guarantee that they will be hired. You can't deny that whites can and will get hired over equally qualified minorities - while it's true that in some interviewing situations, candidates get a fair evaluation and there are times when whites are hired over a minority candidate, the reality is that there are many instances where minorities are still unfairly passed up for opportunities. Just because you didn't see it happen at your job doesn't mean that it does not happen. Now what you did see at your job was a diversity initiative. Companies make a concerted effort to recruit minorities for a lot of good reasons, but they are also protecting themselves as well. There used to be a frequent practice of minorities applying for jobs, and then being told that the position was filled or no longer available... and then shortly after when another white person would interview, they would get the job that was supposedly "filled or no longer available." This is just one example of illegal practices that got companies haled into court. There are many benefits from having a diverse workplace environment, and as I mentioned to Winterlily, there are a lot of PR motives behind these practices as well.

Sure you can say things are "equal" now, but people still have preconceived notions about people (esp. based on race) and these types of barriers still exist in today’s world. The same way people on this board can meet one “dumb minority” and write off the whole group as incompetent, there are people in the working world who think the same way, and are much less inclined to give minorities a fair chance in the job market.

::::YAWN::::

Yea yawn till your jaw pops... it's still the fact of the matter, and the only way any minimal changes have been made are due to mandated diversity initiatives.

Programs like the Freedom Forums don't even make a dent in taking away opportunities from you.

The Freedom Forum itself is barely a dent. You're right. But when major media companies -- Belo, Knight Ridder, Gannett -- start making their internships minority-only, it adds up quickly.

It adds up quickly? Hmmm, ok let's take look at Knight Ridder, as an example....
Knight Ridder
Offer numerous internships annually in newsrooms, online operations or business areas during summers and other periods of up to 12 weeks. In addition, they support their companies' local diversity efforts and offer three minority intership progs.

One of the three programs, The Knight Ridder Minority Scholars Program, had FIVE particiapants in 2005, and FOUR participants in 2004. Let's get alarmed- those kind of numbers are adding up SOOOOOOO quickly, especially when compared to all the white interns in the world...

Sure, it would be just delightful to have a internship program or other opportunity angled for whites – oh but wait, that’s the way it’s been in America for generations, and despite changes like the Civil Rights Movement, that circumstance is still the reality for whites today... (et al, trimmed for brevity)

Save the theory for the coffee shop.

Nice dismissal of my point. Touche. Three snaps in Z formation. Whoohoo.
You are the posterchild of why diversity is important in the workplace, particulary in communication fields.

As I have suggested on this board many times, I highly recommend that you read :
"When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America"
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=3U65fKHBlD&isbn=0393052133&itm=1
by Ira Katznelson(http://www.columbia.edu/cu/polisci/fac-bios/katznelson/faculty.html)

[pop_tort]

I'm not really sure what this has to do with AA.  If it's disproportionately lower, just as minorities pursuing jobs in the field are lower than the median, than doesn't that justify AA in those cases as well?

I think the reality for white immigrants is that they come to America, and they fall out of the immigrant category and into the "white" category. White immigrants get the benefits of being white, while other non-white immigrants fall into the minority category. You might question what are the benefits of automatically "being white," but this is a perspective that you may not understand since you are not a minority. There is no "white-immigrant-minority" category here... sure there was a time when Italians, Russians, and Irish were stratified into different groups from Anglo Saxon whites, but those days are gone. If you look white, that's what you are, and you are more or less relieved of the so-called "stigma" of being a minority.

I'm not sure they're diffusing the reputation.  It's like Clarence Thomas being used to diffuse the Supreme Court's racist past.  It's one thing to hire minorities, and it's another to actually alter the content of your stories.

Right but how many white writers are going to actively seek to alter the content of their stories to a minority perspective on a regular basis? I'm not saying it's not possible, but seriously, if all these internships were open for the taking, would you yourself say, "Gee I want to write about the black community in Philly as intern/staff writer!" or "I want to cover some issues in the Thai community..." etc etc. My guess is that (aside from understandably having interest in your own eastern european background) you'd prob want to just write, and not be as concerned with bringing in perspectives or content from a racial minority view point. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth or be presumptuous about you, but my point in saying this is because had there been no type of diversity internship programs like this to get you upset, all of this diversity/cultural talk would probably have been a non-issue in your writing goals as you pursued journalism opportunities.

This only works if you assume AA is a beloved practice, when in reality, it's one of the most embattled institutions in this country.  If you're under the impression that you're hiring unqualified interns (or in my case, interns that want to be interns for all the wrong reasons) at the expense of well-qualified white students, then you're just going to increase hostility.

Check the Freedom Fighters website. As I mentioned earlier, the interns they highlighted are well qualified. The only difference is that they have non-traditional backgrounds or non-journalism backgrounds and the POINT of the program is to bring in interested minorities into the field. You had one experience with some tool intern that got an opportunity so he could sit courtside at games. Does that represent all the other minorities who are serious about a career in journalism?? Hardly. The fact is that there are still very few minority journalists, especially due to the fact that the industry was once closed to minorities.

Take a look at yourself - you HAVE connections!! If they had worked for you, would you be sitting here day after day debating this with me? Would you even be talking about how great it is to be white and have connections that other people don't have? No. You'd be on your merry way without any complaint whatsoever. Now when things don't work out for you, what do you do? Get all p*ssed off that various papers are offering internships to a measly few racial minorities! I'm not trying to attack you, but it's just interesting that when a behind the door favor doesn't work out for you (a favor that is almost non-existent for most minorities), then you turn around and start attacking these programs and saying how unfair everything is.

[pop_tort]

Here's the rest of my response...

Make my own point?  I think you may have be confused with someone else.

My point in making that statement is that there are people out there who will debate against the idea that a white person can still get farther than a black person or other minority in today's working world. I think a lot of people will deny or argue against that idea because you don't blatantly see it happening, but the reality is that it still happens. I could go on and on and cite examples of incidents from the past ten years, but I'm sure this post is already getting long enough, and there are folks who are still going to debate what has happened. I will leave the matter alone... there are readers out there who will know what I'm talking about, and others that will challenge this point and say "racial discrimination? what racial discrimination??"

So the reality today is that poor white kids can get jobs without experience just because they're white?  Given that people with experience are locked out of internships and entry level jobs due to their race -- even more affluent ones with connections -- then it's highly unlikely that this is true. Besides doesn't this contradict what you said about the value placed by publishing companies on racial diversity for the sake of racial diversity?

Getting one internship is a drop in the bucket when compared to the span of someone's career. My point is that in the long run of one's career a white person does have advantages that a person of color doesn't have. This has been proven on reports from Dateline and MSNCB over the years, even with simple examples like blacks and whites applying for the same jobs and seeing who gets hired after an interview; or submitting resumes that are virtually the same with the only difference being the name and seeing how many more responses are received from the "white" sounding name versus that black/asian/ latino sounding names.

People with experience are not locked out of jobs. If companies have a diversity initiative and are trying to hire minorities, that doesn't mean they are not trying to higher whites. If there's a major paper that is 90% minority staffed and still has a diversity initiative, then your point about qualified whites being "locked out" might be applicable. Most papers and other periodicals are staffed predominantly by whites, so to talk about a lock out is more or less ridiculous, don't you think?

Why not?  If a white kid is poor, then they're more likely to see things in terms of SES  -- which means they're far more likely to have stories sympathetic to poor black kids than rich white ones.

Anyone can be sympathetic to that issue. But are they interested in those issues, and not just on an SES level. Just because someone is white and dirt poor does not mean that they have an interest in covering issues on poor minorities. Someone who is white and poor may want to write in t he business section or write on international affairs. Sure you could make that argument about a racial minority, but a person of color is still going to hold that perspective in how they convey information. For example, when Nathalee Holloway was missing, look at how long the news continued to show pictures of the black islanders who were falsely accused of kidnapping her when it was quickly established that three non-black islanders were involved. The same way after Katrina, a disproportionate amount of homeless black people were shown again and again, and not as many whites where interviewed during the tragedy. I could go on and on, but the point is when you have a minority perspective in the newsroom, it begins to reshape how information is delivered because there are people present who can show how these types of things are perceived to different people. SES does not make as strong a link, or even the same type of link to a group of people in the way a racial or ethnic tie does.   

...I still didn't get an interview because I didn't match the stated criteria.

So you're saying the ONLY reason you didn't get called back was because you were white?

So much for your theory about the ol' boys network.

Ok, so you have not seen or benefited from the old boys network. But that that simply mean that it's not here anymore? I'd really beg to differ. It's just not in our faces, as blatant as it was in the past. Decisions are made by phone, behind closed doors, from friend to friend. It's still alive and well, just not operating in the way we once saw it.

Not in Philadelphia, which is around 10% percent foreign-born, and 20% Russian if you include their kids who were born in America.  The magnet schools are around 25-40%, with the notable exception of CAPA. 

Hey you know more than me when it comes to Philly - I'm from the west coast which has more of a larger population of Asian and Latino immigrants, as well as a significantly large population of 1st gen kids.

Actually, I did volunteer for a Congresswoman who tried to reform this in Pennsylvania.

I agree with you, that the school systems do need to change... it would be the first step in perhaps establishing some type of equal playing field so we could move on from what I call the modified "separate but equal" status quo.

[wallaby]

Just FYI, I am a journalist, which I consider a professional-type position. And I am aware of NO AA policies w/in print journalism, it's all about who the boss folks "connect" with and it is very much a white boys club. In five years in journalism I have met only ONE black print journalist and only ONE Hispanic print journalist that works in the county where I work. (It is better on TV, I realize.) I live in California. We're pretty ethnically diverse here.

For argument's sake we could say that all other things being equal, there is no reason a minority should get any "bonus points" in legal hiring or opportunities.

I would disagree. I cover courts. The criminal defendants are predominately Mexican and Black. The lawyers? Almost exclusively white. I think that's a problem. If I were a defendant, frankly I would feel more comfortable with a defense attorney I could identify with.
I think it helps the prosecution as well to have minority attorneys. We all know many defendants claim racial discrimination. I think a defendant would have less credibility with that claim if the prosecutor were also a minority.

So you have no problem supporting both the equal protection policy and then supporting a position that undermines it?

The whole point is that race doesn't matter. We must not allow ourselves to cater to the primitive instincts of individuals who "relate" with their own race when the majority view and stated policy of this country is color blind.

We must not continue to accept that exceptions are, in fact, the rule.

[wallaby]

The Supreme Court--hardly a liberal body--doesn't have a problem with it.

Not sure where you are pulling that one from. The court was in fact liberal when it handed down its decision (or lack of a decision since it simply neglected to really make an argument and pretty much just recognized the Powell decision).

As for Bush and Republicans--was it not Bush who got into Harvard Business School with a C average and miserable boards? Can you say legacy admission?

Not only was George a legacy admit, his father was also a high ranking government official with a billion dollars. Your attempt to justify a rule (blacks with average credentials being admitted into elite schools) with an exception (Bush's legacy status and his father's five gazillion dollars) is futile.

I keep hearing proponents fall back onto this silly justification, but they overlook two crucial components. First, legacy admits fall stricly within the purview of each school, IE: there is no constitutional question that they are permitted. AA clearly and obviously runs counter to the equal protection clause and can only be justified by dubiously citing "compelling state interest," something heretofor exclusively the realm of national security.

The equivalent would be suspending habeus corpus in the case that someone commits a thought crime, I mean "hate crime."

[wallaby]

Basically, my problem is that your assumption would be that there is some sort of way to measure intelligence; that, if some kid does really well and goes to law school, he is inherently smarter than another kid who did not. 

You are way too smart for the crap you spew. If you get a whiff of someone questioning  your PC doctrine- you hysterically accuse that person of being a racist. You did imply he/she is racist by connecting his thoughts with an intellectual movement from before his lifetime that he is likely not even familiar with. Try to open your mind to the possibility that he has a valid position instead of just looking for places where he gets close to the line and then daring him to cross. Its immature.

Perhaps there is an innate intelligence, but to measure it by someone's academic success is highly problematic.  The competitive field just is not equal for everyone.  In short, success is not a good measure of intelligence.

I think the issue is linking intelligence with tests designed explicitly for the purpose. The LSAT is one such test (albeit designed to measure specific components of intelligence) and the IQ test. I dont think many rational and informed people conclude that success or academic competence is an accurate measure of capacity or intelligence, and for precisely the factors which you describe + others. Stop being so goddamned reactionary though. You could actually use your intelligence to help people understand complex issues, instead, you appear to use it to serve some other purpose that is beginning to look like megalomania.

And I seriously mean no offense to you. I respect your views and your knowledge and your ability to analyze issues.

[wallaby]

  I don't know what Ivy you go to, but around here, poorly qualified legacies are still a rule...

Would be nice to see some numbers that support your claim.

I keep hearing proponents fall back onto this silly justification, but they overlook two crucial components. First, legacy admits fall stricly within the purview of each school, IE: there is no constitutional question that they are permitted.

Then why can't the same be true with AA at private universities?

Two reasons, almost all of them accept federal or state money, and second, the equal protection clause. Each and every member of the supreme court understands that AA violates equal protection or anti discrimination legislation or both- the only debate is whether diversity in the classroom warrants classification as a "compelling state interest." The last ruling even threw out the defense of redress of historic injustices as a reason to affirm.

AA clearly and obviously runs counter to the equal protection clause and can only be justified by dubiously citing "compelling state interest," something heretofor exclusively the realm of national security.

Doesn't the equal protection clause primarily focus on federal and state laws?

Its purpose was to protect individuals from the state. But private institutions are still not immune to equal protection and anti discrimination legislation of the 60's if they receive federal money, and or if they are of a certain size.

[FossilJ]

The brevity of this post permits me a quick response during my writing break.

Basically, my problem is that your assumption would be that there is some sort of way to measure intelligence; that, if some kid does really well and goes to law school, he is inherently smarter than another kid who did not. 

You are way too smart for the crap you spew. If you get a whiff of someone questioning  your PC doctrine- you hysterically accuse that person of being a racist.

Actually, I have no PC doctrine.  This is an unsupported ad hominem.

I don't see how this argument (or any of my arguments) is part of an agenda of political correctness.  Non-absolutism, definitely.  Critical perception of power constructs and the narrative construction of history (as fact-based mythology), also definitely.  But political correctness?  Nah.  You're not protected from my ire just because you're part of some particular group.

I don't like to polarize like you seem to enjoy doing.  I don't see issues in black and white (excuse the pun).  I don't see anything as an issue of "us versus them"; rather, it's one of "these terms versus those terms".  Solutions usually lie in the grey area somewhere in the middle.   

You did imply he/she is racist by connecting his thoughts with an intellectual movement from before his lifetime that he is likely not even familiar with. Try to open your mind to the possibility that he has a valid position instead of just looking for places where he gets close to the line and then daring him to cross. Its immature.

You make this mistake quite often.  I did not imply he is racist.  I implied his line of thinking is racist.  It was an addressal of the premises, not the person.  If you read the full debate, this should be clear to you.

The connection was specifically aimed at the premises upon which the argument was based.  The position was posited as valid, and my counter was that, given a certain set of criteria, it should not be posited as such.  The terms were debated, and a compromise reached.  That's the way reasonable people argue issues.

The irony of this statement of yours, of course, is that, just like the previous one, it's pure ad hominem.

Perhaps there is an innate intelligence, but to measure it by someone's academic success is highly problematic.  The competitive field just is not equal for everyone.  In short, success is not a good measure of intelligence.

I think the issue is linking intelligence with tests designed explicitly for the purpose. The LSAT is one such test (albeit designed to measure specific components of intelligence) and the IQ test.

Decontextualized.  This issue was specifically addressed.

I dont think many rational and informed people conclude that success or academic competence is an accurate measure of capacity or intelligence, and for precisely the factors which you describe + others.

Right.  Which is why propounding those factors to someone who may not be aware of them is necessary.

Stop being so goddamned reactionary though. You could actually use your intelligence to help people understand complex issues, instead, you appear to use it to serve some other purpose that is beginning to look like megalomania.

This seems like an odd comment given what I just addressed before it.  In any case, I debate for two reasons.  First, I'd like to provide an opposing view, in the hope that we can find an enlightening middle ground.  Second, I like to debate because I think I'm fairly decent at it.  That gives me an ego boost.  So yes, mild megalomania perhaps.  Still, why the need for the ad hominem?

And I seriously mean no offense to you. I respect your views and your knowledge and your ability to analyze issues.

Thanks.   

[wallaby]

Actually, I have no PC doctrine.  This is an unsupported ad hominem.

Yeah, believe what you will, but so far I've only heard you argue from the position of what is considered standard among liberal elites.

I don't see how this argument (or any of my arguments) is part of an agenda of political correctness.  Non-absolutism, definitely.  Critical perception of power constructs and the narrative construction of history (as fact-based mythology), also definitely.  But political correctness?  Nah.  You're not protected from my ire just because you're part of some particular group.

Notions of non-absolutism, power constructs and narrative construction of history are all liberal PC constructs themselves. You may not know that a world exists outside of liberal elitism, but I assure you it does.

I don't like to polarize like you seem to enjoy doing.  I don't see issues in black and white (excuse the pun).  I don't see anything as an issue of "us versus them"; rather, it's one of "these terms versus those terms".  Solutions usually lie in the grey area somewhere in the middle. 

We couldn't disagree more. Now we are talking philosophy. I personally feel that Plato was right, that there is a difference between belief and knowledge. I derive my conclusions based on hard data, knowledge- I'm not sure how you derive your's, but it seems that you avoid conclusions altogether and prefer to retreat into the relativism of modern liberalism.

You make this mistake quite often.  I did not imply he is racist.  I implied his line of thinking is racist.  It was an addressal of the premises, not the person.  If you read the full debate, this should be clear to you.

Im dazzled by your shell game. Remember Bill Clinton trying to call into question the meaning of "is"?

The irony of this statement of yours, of course, is that, just like the previous one, it's pure ad hominem.

Ad hominems are necessary when an out of control liberal whacko calls someone a racist for no reason.

Decontextualized.  This issue was specifically addressed.

No, it isn't, and no it wasn't.

Right.  Which is why propounding those factors to someone who may not be aware of them is necessary.

Not sure why you would bother doing so, noone had taken the position that intelligence was measured by academic acheivement.

This seems like an odd comment given what I just addressed before it.  In any case, I debate for two reasons.  First, I'd like to provide an opposing view, in the hope that we can find an enlightening middle ground.  Second, I like to debate because I think I'm fairly decent at it.  That gives me an ego boost.  So yes, mild megalomania perhaps.  Still, why the need for the ad hominem?

Because I dont think playing devil's advocate for the sake of argumentation and as a method of combating "absolutism" is prestigious. I think your motives are purely narcissist and obnoxious. Just because you are smarter than 99% of the world does not mean that they aren't right. You should try actually taking a position and then debating it, rather than just trying to punch holes in everyone else's position. You may impress a few plebs, but critical thinkers see your efforts for what they are, sometimes peripherally informative but otherwise gratuitous showboating.

Thanks.

You are welcome, now grow up and start contributing substance instead of forcing people to sift through your impressive rhetoric to uncover the fact that you dont have any views of your own. 

[Gary Glitter]

"You are welcome, now grow up and start contributing substance instead of forcing people to sift through your (un)impressive rhetoric to uncover the fact that you dont have any views of your own."

haha . . .what? using nifty catch phrases stolen from the margins of english lit 101 papers does not constitute an effective mode of argument?   

your honor, in responding to the prosecution's arguments, i say: decontextualized!