Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Whiteboyism  (Read 2332 times)

Tony Montana

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 517
  • Strength and honor
    • View Profile
Whiteboyism
« on: January 30, 2007, 07:41:05 PM »
An article talking about "whiteboyism":

Whiteboyism, American-Style
by Terry Smith

Stories abound in corporate America of blacks getting whiteboyed–slammed in often subtle ways by behavior whose effect, if not purpose, is racial subordination. From Ellis Cose’s The Rage of A Privileged Class to the more recent entry, Herman Malone’s Lynched By Corporate America, these tales have been propagated for mass public consumption and, at least ostensibly, for education. Predating and coinciding with Professor Richard Sander’s congenital obsession with proving black inferiority in the legal profession, similar narratives as well as supporting data have emerged about whiteboying in the practice of law. (See, for example, The Good Black. I do mean to be impious toward Professor Sander’s work, for it is curious when a white man devotes so such energy to demonstrating why an already under-represented group should be more under-represented instead of explaining the structural advantages that allow over-represented groups to remain over-represented.) And of course, the casual observer of politics witnesses whiteboying with a frequency that allows him to pull examples from the tips of his fingers. Black Republican Michael Steele, who once described President Bush as his "homeboy," was passed over by the President for the position of Republican National Committee Chairman in favor a white Cuban. Congressman Alcee Hastings, exonerated of criminal wrongdoing as a judge by a jury of his peers, was passed over as Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, purportedly because his impeachment while on the bench made him unfit to serve in such a sensitive post. The catch: the impeachment was based on the same conduct for which Hastings was found innocent, occurred nearly seven years after his acquittal, and its sanction did not, as was the Senate’s prerogative, forbid Hastings from holding "any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States."

A colleague of mine at a northeastern law school recently shared with me her own brush with whiteboying. A white male faculty member of no particular institutional stature had excluded her from a meeting for which her committee duties made it appropriate that she attend. This was not done inadvertently: the white male colleague explained that because he and his black colleague did not get along, he had excluded her to present the best face possible to a job candidate for whom the meeting was scheduled. It was a real-time example of the "personality defense" that has come to be raised to explain away circumstances that are equally susceptible to a reading of discrimination. The black professor’s only "clash" with her white colleague had been to disagree with him on occasion in faculty meetings.

As manifold if not exponential as examples like these are, there is little collective racial shame on the part of whites and a disquieting passivity on the part of people of color, blacks in particular. Whites (and even other minority groups) are increasingly emboldened in their challenges to claims for black equality. White students at Boston University offer a whites-only scholarship as a protest against affirmative action. An Asian non-citizen launches an attack against affirmative action because he did not get into every Ivy League to which he applied. The Bush Administration files an amicus brief in the racially-charged affirmative action cases (Grutter v. Bollinger), but curiously stays out of the culturally-divisive sodomy case (Lawrence v. Texas).

I teach employment law and specialize in the area of protected employee speech. I’ve advocated in my scholarship, and have advised individuals to the same effect, that sometimes the best way–indeed the only way– to avoid being a victim of whiteboyism is to call it out, to confront it. Despite the protection the law affords expressions of opposition to perceived discrimination, employees of color often fear social stigmatism. Nothing illustrates the ubiquity of this fear more than the behavior of people of color in the legal academy. A friend of mine relayed a story about a faculty hiring meeting in which all the black faculty members walked out in protest of the unequal treatment of a minority job candidate. How rare, I thought to myself. That would never happen at my institution, where there is each year plenty of reason to boycott hiring meetings. And it would not happen at most institutions. If tenured law professors of color with lifetime jobs refuse to confront whiteboyism, it is not difficult to imagine the trepidation in other walks of life.

That’s why Professor Sander feels at liberty to publish rubbish suggesting a link between law-school grades and law firm success. If this link were causal, of course, one would expect law professors to hail from successful law-firm careers. It would be odd, to say the least, if those who teach law students to be successful law-firm practitioners, and who issue the grades that Sander says are essential to law firm success, themselves have a distant connection to practice. Sander earned his law degree in 1988 and started teaching law in 1989. The absence of law practice, or very short stints of it, is a trend in the academy. How, then, can grades issued by those with little or no practice be an indicator of success for practice? For that matter, how does one explain the former dean of Stanford Law School failing the California Bar–not as a student, but rather as a tenured member of Stanford’s faculty?

People of color, blacks in particular, continue to be proverbial punching bags for a drifting America whose misdirection is guided largely by white men. Our silence only makes matters worse.

Posted by Terry Smith on January 2, 2007 08:12 AM | Permalink

Can't say this surprises me! 
Consuetudo pro lege servatur...Corruptisima re publica plurimae leges.

Tony Montana

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 517
  • Strength and honor
    • View Profile
Re: Whiteboyism
« Reply #1 on: January 31, 2007, 10:04:28 AM »
If you expect some type of response, I believe you are going to have to add some more detail to your comment... However, if it's just a rhetorical statement, then it has served its purpose!
Consuetudo pro lege servatur...Corruptisima re publica plurimae leges.

Tony Montana

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 517
  • Strength and honor
    • View Profile
Re: Whiteboyism
« Reply #2 on: January 31, 2007, 10:22:39 AM »


agreed. it's nonsensical.

What exactly is it that's "nonsensical?" The entire article? The entire quoted paragraph or certain phrases within?
Consuetudo pro lege servatur...Corruptisima re publica plurimae leges.

Tony Montana

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 517
  • Strength and honor
    • View Profile
Re: Whiteboyism
« Reply #3 on: January 31, 2007, 10:32:31 AM »
the quoted paragraph.

What about it "nonsensical?" 

Btw, instead of answering in vague three word phrases then logging off.. Why don't you grow a pair and try answering the question in complete comprehensive sentences. 
Consuetudo pro lege servatur...Corruptisima re publica plurimae leges.

Tony Montana

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 517
  • Strength and honor
    • View Profile
Re: Whiteboyism
« Reply #4 on: January 31, 2007, 11:17:55 AM »

1. That’s why Professor Sander feels at liberty to publish rubbish suggesting a link between law-school grades and law firm success.

2. If this link were causal, of course, one would expect law professors to hail from successful law-firm careers.

3. It would be odd, to say the least, if those who teach law students to be successful law-firm practitioners, and who issue the grades that Sander says are essential to law firm success, themselves have a distant connection to practice.

4. Sander earned his law degree in 1988 and started teaching law in 1989.

5. The absence of law practice, or very short stints of it, is a trend in the academy.

6. How, then, can grades issued by those with little or no practice be an indicator of success for practice?[/size][/b]


1 is okay
2 is logically flawed
3. is factually flawed
4. doesn't help 2 0r 3
5. is the conclusion telegraphed by the logical flaw in step 2.
 

Okay...that's a little better!

Sure, I can find logical flaws in that partially quoted paragraph.  For example, law professors do not necessarily need law firm experience to teach students how to become successful law practitioners.  However, the point that paragraph is making is it is also flawed to believe that law school grades--which is primarily based on a final exam--has a causal relationship to law firm success and NOT a coincidental one!

Finally, if the idea is to pull out a logical flaw(s) in the article in order to undermine the gist of the article--which is Whiteboyism--then it is a red herring at best!

Btw.did you notice that scourge did not quote the last part of that paragraph:

Quote
For that matter, how does one explain the former dean of Stanford Law School failing the California Bar–not as a student, but rather as a tenured member of Stanford’s faculty?



  

Consuetudo pro lege servatur...Corruptisima re publica plurimae leges.

Tony Montana

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 517
  • Strength and honor
    • View Profile
Re: Whiteboyism
« Reply #5 on: January 31, 2007, 11:36:56 AM »
whatever.

Lol!  An example of a rebuttal from someone with the intellectual horsepower of a 2 year old!
Consuetudo pro lege servatur...Corruptisima re publica plurimae leges.

alphadog24

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 159
  • Kage Bunshin No Jutsu
    • View Profile
Re: Whiteboyism
« Reply #6 on: January 31, 2007, 11:58:14 AM »
The article's point in that paragraph makes absolutely no sense. Such a correlation would only suggest that law professors who got good grades in school, IF they went into practice at a law firm, would perform well. To say that people got high grades, and therefore, they should be in law firms and not professors, has to be one of the most nonsensical things I have ever read in something purported to be a serious article.
Emory Law 2010

alphadog24

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 159
  • Kage Bunshin No Jutsu
    • View Profile
Re: Whiteboyism
« Reply #7 on: January 31, 2007, 12:03:35 PM »
How, then, can grades issued by those with little or no practice be an indicator of success for practice?

This shows that the author did'nt even bother to read Sander's affirmative action article before commenting on it. He uses advanced statistics to analyze correlations. At least glance at the article, jeez! If not to read it, at least you can see the tables and charts, which are largely self explanatory.
Emory Law 2010

Tony Montana

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 517
  • Strength and honor
    • View Profile
Re: Whiteboyism
« Reply #8 on: January 31, 2007, 12:46:51 PM »
The article's point in that paragraph makes absolutely no sense. Such a correlation would only suggest that law professors who got good grades in school, IF they went into practice at a law firm, would perform well. To say that people got high grades, and therefore, they should be in law firms and not professors, has to be one of the most nonsensical things I have ever read in something purported to be a serious article.

I think you need to re-read the article, because it is your response that makes very little sense.  For example, the article did not say that people that got high grades "should be in law firms and not professors."

How, then, can grades issued by those with little or no practice be an indicator of success for practice?


This shows that the author did'nt even bother to read Sander's affirmative action article before commenting on it. He uses advanced statistics to analyze correlations. At least glance at the article, jeez! If not to read it, at least you can see the tables and charts, which are largely self explanatory.

Here you purport that the author did not bother to read Sander's article because the results of Sander's "advance" statistically analysis are self explanatory and therefore he need not question it:

1) He was NOT questioning the results of the statistics, he was questioning the fact that the data was used by Sander to conclude that there is a causal link to grades and law firm "success." as opposed to a coincidental one.  Ask yourself: What does Sanders define as "law firm success?"  And, what in grades--besides statistics-- makes him conclude that it is the cause of "law firm success?" As oppose to just a correlation.

2) If you have taken statistics, I am sure that you know that statistics can be used in different ways to serve different purposes.  The only thing that is self-explanatory here is that there is a correlation between high grades and "law firm success"--if success is define in the parameters of making partner at the firm.  What it does not tell us with confidence is that grades causes law firm success.  Can you see the difference?

Consuetudo pro lege servatur...Corruptisima re publica plurimae leges.

Tony Montana

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 517
  • Strength and honor
    • View Profile
Re: Whiteboyism
« Reply #9 on: January 31, 2007, 01:03:40 PM »
whatever.

Lol!  An example of a rebuttal from someone with the intellectual horsepower of a 2 year old!

Or from someone who has concluded that you have the intellectual horsepower of a 2 year old and has decided not to waste any more time on you.  jsia


Lol! 

If she really decided not to "waste any more time" on me, she should've not responded, period!  Nevertheless she chose to respond like a juvenile, and I responded according!


Oh and I'm not saying that you do, because I didn't bother reading anything you wrote.  But I generally credit meiji's dismissals.

The fact that you are willing to blindly trust the response of someone and come to their defense without bothering to read anything else tells me all I need to know about your character...

Consuetudo pro lege servatur...Corruptisima re publica plurimae leges.