Law Firm 'Aggressive Racial Preferences'

[Miss P]

What does this tirade say about your "ability to understand the ideas of people you disagree with," Breadboy?  I am always respectful of you and I try to engage you in rational debate when we meet up, so I really don't know what you are talking about.

Up to this point I’d agree with you. You’re a open to the ideas of others (albeit ideas phrased in the nicest possible terms), and I congratulate you for that.

The notion that Sander is not racist because he sired a black child is ridiculous.  I was mostly responding to Shaz's explication of how stupid that is. 

One could theoretically be a white racist, marry a black woman, and have a child with her, but I’d say that’s a rare occurrence, and especially unrelated to this situation.

It may have been more politic for me to say that I have been following Sander's work for a long time

What’s a long time?

and I find his studies so flawed and convoluted that my only explanation is that he has determined their outcome -- that affirmative action is unacceptable -- before really giving a hard look at the evidence.  Either that, or he's not very smart.  I would guess it's more the former.  I think that makes him guilty of having an anti-black bias. 

This is where I disagree with you the most. Do you understand the seriousness of the charge you raise? My least favorite thing about dealing with smart and somewhat partisan is they tend to come up with dichotomies like this. You’ve just said that if someone predetermines the outcome of a study and finds affirmative action to be unacceptable he is guilty of having an anti-black bias. Flawed and convoluted studies are one thing, that we can disagree about, but leaping to a charge of racism/anti-black bias is in this case similar to calling someone a witch, a communist, or a nazi.

Before tonight, I have never called anyone (or their work) racist, fascist, evil, or Nazi on the boards.  Don't tell me to "stop" doing something I have never done.  I reserve this term for people and behaviors that I think are really consciously working to advance or perpetuate systemic racial inequality, and Sander is one of the few people I would ever use it on. 

I’ll take your word on this.

p.s. I didn't call him racist; I called his work racist. I think there's a difference.

You’ve also charged him with having an anti-black bias and, depending on just what you meant, that could qualify.

I don't know why it matters, but I have had my eye on Sander since he was conducting his first "study" in the early 2000s.  I think affirmative action is an important subject.

I'm not really interested in discussing the rest of this with you.  Why not debate the issues instead of my tactics, rhetoric, or character.  (Strangely enough, this is what you always ask others to do, and exactly what you have asked of me in your initial post.)  I have explained why I think the studies are flawed and convoluted.  Am I wrong?  The question of whether I slandered Sander is a red herring; it has nothing to do with the study or his article.

Also, I'm sorry if you think that Sander will be offended by one carelessly worded post of a pre-law detractor on a discussion board.  My guess is that he couldn't care less, but there you go.  Prof. Sander, if you are reading this, I didn't mean it. 

[dbgirl]

Off topic: Miss P - the new tar is nice.
What a unique skin tone you have 

[shaz]

Off topic: Miss P - the new tar is nice.
What a unique skin tone you have 

i'd just like to say the same for finally's new tar.   

[Miss P]

Off topic: Miss P - the new tar is nice.
What a unique skin tone you have 

I am half extraterrestrial, obviously.  And I was trying to obscure things enough that it would be unrecognizable, of course.

i'd just like to say the same for finally's new tar.   

Well, yeah, I mean... dang!  That's one fine earthling!

[cui bono?]

Off topic: Miss P - the new tar is nice.
What a unique skin tone you have 

i'd just like to say the same for finally's new tar.   

lol!   

Off topic: Miss P - the new tar is nice.
What a unique skin tone you have 

I am half extraterrestrial, obviously.  And I was trying to obscure things enough that it would be unrecognizable, of course.

i'd just like to say the same for finally's new tar.   

Well, yeah, I mean... dang!  That's one fine earthling!

again check's in the mail!!   man am I the source of all thread'napping??   

[Miss P]

I'm not really interested in discussing the rest of this with you.  Why not debate the issues instead of my tactics, rhetoric, or character.  (Strangely enough, this is what you always ask others to do, and exactly what you have asked of me in your initial post.) 

I asked this of you, because discussions where racism has been charged tend to go in one direction.

And so do discussions where "liberal namecalling" has been charged.  Can we move on?

Seriously, I take it back.  Let me stick to my original theses that this study sounds pretty weak to me and that reducing affirmative action will harm African Americans.  Let's talk about these things.  Maybe even just the former.

I have explained why I think the studies are flawed and convoluted.  Am I wrong?

Yes.

Who what when where why how?  Do you have an argument here?

One day, you'll be all grown up and your opinions, writings, and judgments of the character of others may well be taken very seriously.

I'm quite grown, thank you.  But I do appreciate the notion that someone will take me seriously some day.  If the past thirty or so years are any indication, though, I think you're sadly mistaken. 

[dbgirl]

I'm not really interested in discussing the rest of this with you.  Why not debate the issues instead of my tactics, rhetoric, or character.  (Strangely enough, this is what you always ask others to do, and exactly what you have asked of me in your initial post.) 

I asked this of you, because discussions where racism has been charged tend to go in one direction.

And so do discussions where "liberal namecalling" has been charged.  Can we move on?

Seriously, I take it back.  Let me stick to my original theses that this study sounds pretty weak to me and that I think that reducing affirmative action will harm African Americans.  Let's talk about these things.  Maybe even just the former.

I have explained why I think the studies are flawed and convoluted.  Am I wrong?

Yes.

Who what when where why how?  Do you have an argument here?

One day, you'll be all grown up and your opinions, writings, and judgments of the character of others may well be taken very seriously.

I'm quite grown, thank you.  But I do appreciate the notion that someone will take me seriously some day.  If the past thirty or so years are any indication, though, I think you're sadly mistaken. 

I take you seriously Miss P. You actually know what you're talking about most of the time ... as opposed to making up hypotheticals about things as you imagine them to be.

[Miss P]

I take you seriously Miss P. You actually know what you're talking about most of the time ... as opposed to making up hypotheticals about things as you imagine them to be.

Thanks, db. And likewise.   

[nicknaylor]

I was the original poster of this whole discussion thing.  As I have not yet had the time to peruse through Sanders’ full article (68 pages), I will restrain myself from adding any comments, for they will lack any form of cogency (plus my mom just called me and told me that I am mentally retarded).  BUT I want everyone to know that many of his articles, critiques of his articles (already including the firm-related one), and his rebuttals to critics can be found here:

http://www.law.ucla.edu/sander/

Since his most significant articles range between 30-110 pages, I am expecting everyone on here to read them in full, along with any supplemental material, and then summarize it for me in exactly 16 pages (and then explain to me what my emotional reaction should be, or any other thoughts therein), for I am too lazy to read or think myself………plus you will help me circumvent staring at a bright LCD screen for hours, thus preventing the degeneration of my retinas.  Your work will pay off for me in the long run.  Trust me.  Thank you.  (I prefer formatting according to the Chicago Manual of Style: 15th Edition)  The winner of the best 16 page summary will win my daily planner, which will need to be replaced during the first week of August 2006 (academic format).

[Miss P]

I was the original poster of this whole discussion thing.  As I have not yet had the time to peruse through Sanders’ full article (68 pages), I will restrain myself from adding any comments, for they will lack any form of cogency (plus my mom just called me and told me that I am mentally retarded).  BUT I want everyone to know that many of his articles, critiques of his articles (already including the firm-related one), and his rebuttals to critics can be found here:

http://www.law.ucla.edu/sander/

Since his most significant articles range between 30-110 pages, I am expecting everyone on here to read them in full, along with any supplemental material, and then summarize it for me in exactly 16 pages (and then explain to me what my emotional reaction should be, or any other thoughts therein), for I am too lazy to read or think myself………plus you will help me circumvent staring at a bright LCD screen for hours, thus preventing the degeneration of my retinas.  Your work will pay off for me in the long run.  Trust me.  Thank you.  (I prefer formatting according to the Chicago Manual of Style: 15th Edition)  The winner of the best 16 page summary will win my daily planner, which will need to be replaced during the first week of August 2006 (academic format).

Heh-heh.  I am also partial to the Chicago 15th ed. so I'll do my best.

Thanks for linking to the article.  I've been waiting to read it and I'm glad it's public.  I hope to return with less speculative comments soon.