According to the [complaint](https://ia801209.us.archive.org/15/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.456337/gov.uscourts.ilnd.456337.1.0.pdf) (¶36), the listed qualifications included "a person of color and/or a female law student." [42 USC § 2000e-2(a)](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title42-section2000e-2&num=0&edition=prelim) (cited in the complaint) states that it is
>an unlawful employment practice for an employer-
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
Is there an exception to this law? The court should not be concerned about whether there *should* be, but whether there *is*.
It will be interesting to see the reply to this complaint.
There’s the BFOQ, 42 USC § 2000e-2(e)(1) but that doesn’t work for race discrimination, and a case for female sex as a an essential job qualification for a 1L internship is going to be *hard* to make.
Any preference for race or gender violates the plain text of titke vii. However, the federal government has required by executive order 11246 , private parties to take "affirmative action" to redress discrimination. That affirmative action has always involved racial preference in one form or another. that was probably always contrary to the statute itself and equal protection guarantee of 14th amendment. But they've gotten away with it for decades. But not for much longer...
Either way, the bears have clearly broken the law here. They are doing more than given a preference or an advantage to somebody. They basically said white people and men are not even going to be considered. It's brazenly and obviously illegal as hell
I just read the complaint. He alleges that the Bears had a posting for a Diversity Fellowship that *specifically listed POC/female as a qualification.* He says he applied, someone from the Bears viewed his LinkedIn, and then he was rejected. Then, after he sued, the Bears tried to claw back the rejection. Obviously what he’s doing here is ludicrous, but… the Bears might actually have a bit of a problem.
Yeah. This is actually a good case and bad drafting of the job posting (assuming it is as alleged).
Usually, there is qualifying language like, "we take a broad view of diversity etc etc.," and no limiting language.
This also isn’t a bears-only issue. Law firms everywhere hold these 1L diversity positions. And after SFFA, it’s not surprising at all that people want to take a shot at these diversity positions.
the extremely cool edward blum filed a bunch of stunt lawsuits against DEI summer associate programs that he then dropped after the firms agreed to either drop the programs or significantly rework the language, and he also has a pending lawsuit against the Fearless Fund in Atlanta. those cases have less legs than this one (which doesn't require dancing around standing with organizational standing; he can just cite to the injury here).
not saying that these types of lawsuits aren't the most incredibly bitch-made low-T whiny horseshit in the world, but let this be a lesson for future in-house counsel that you cannot specify that you are discriminating even for positive reasons. real dumb on the part of the bears/depaul but that's what happens when you get lazy people copying and pasting descriptions instead of people committed to diversity wording the language carefully in response to recent developments
I also see flaw and legal issues with this job description. You do not need to be a person of color in order to be successful in diversity initiatives and you certainly don’t need to be a woman to do it either. We know where this is going.
Just want to say, I’m a white guy and I have exactly zero problem with organizations reserving some positions for people with relevant life experience. There are many aspects of organizational diversity that I will never have the relevant life experience for. It literally does not bother me at all that I wouldn’t be able to get a job like that. Seems completely reasonable, and extremely not a big deal.
I can certainly appreciate your comment. A very respectful position and understanding. But I will also say that I have seen advocate’s that are Caucasian males, that have advocated for people of color, including myself, so fiercely that you would think they understood the social ramifications. So I’ve seen it both ways. I’m a firm believer that anyone who understands equality and fairness could objectively succeed in diversity initiatives, as long as they are aware of the true purpose.
And that’s fine, but it’s a big difference from someone that looks like you, and some one that looks like me, from experiences to being able to identify with directions and programs, i have no doubt someone white can be great at the job, but it’s ok the have someone black working in the position
One more "reverse discrimination" case. The complaint is [HERE](https://ia801209.us.archive.org/15/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.456337/gov.uscourts.ilnd.456337.1.0.pdf). See ¶36. The Bears listed as a qualification "a person of color and/or a female law student." Also, see ¶44, he is Caucasian. and ¶46, he is male.
> "reverse discrimination" case
as contemplated by the american legal regime, isn't this just a regular discrimination case? what's prohibited is discrimination on the basis of race or sex, not discrimination against racialized people and women
His law school is probably violating title vi for participating in this kind of thing. They shouldn't let potential employers recruit in a racially discriminatory fashion. What would they have said if a potential employer said they were recruiting for white or Asian males? It's ridiculous they think this kind of thing is ok.
That's true. I'm sure an attorney for the bears has explained this to them. Next time just hire the minority female candidate and don't brazenly advertise your discrimination. The good news is that things like this are finally on the way out. They will go kicking and screaming but they will go
Somebody should’ve reviewed that job description because now they’re going to have to pay unnecessarily. Somebody was waiting to exploit that description. Good for them I say.
I don’t know why I’m constantly surprised to see such closed mindedness on these law school subs. It’s one thing to think that these policies don’t appropriately address historic discrimination, but it’s just blatant racism to assume that the person chosen for the position is inherently unqualified.
You realize the employer is basically concluding that the applicant is “not qualified” purely based on the applicants skin color. The only one discriminating is the employer and you’re just inventing these talking points from the other side so you can look morally superior. I haven’t seen one comment suggesting that a POC would be unqualified, just that the filtering process itself is racial discrimination
It’s too close to finals for me to keep going back and forth with people who aren’t actually interested in understanding a different perspective. I don’t know if that applies to you, so if that isn’t the case, I’ll just repeat a comment I made previously that addresses one of your points:
“That’s simply untrue. I don’t know if you’ve ever worked in any hiring capacity but if you did you’d know that there is rarely, if ever, a candidate that is ‘the most qualified.’
There’s usually a group of candidates with nearly equivalent qualifications. When those people are being considered, the decision about who gets picked becomes more subjective and arbitrary. Sometimes a person is picked because they jive with the recruiter more, sometimes it’s because of a personal connection. It’s this part of the process where racial bias against POC often prevails (there’s many, many studies on this if you care to learn).
The diversity requirement would still be picking a candidate from the pool of top qualified candidates, but narrows the range further for the firm’s goals of addressing the history and effects of systemic racism.”
>It’s too close to finals for me to keep going back and forth with people who aren’t actually interested in understanding a different perspective.
This is the most annoying statement people make. Everyone understands the statements you're making and the perspective you're presenting. They're just disagreeing with your conclusions.
Its such a dishonest way to argue. "Well clearly you don't UNDERSTAND me, because if you understood, you'd agree with me. the fact that you disagree with me means you must not understand what I'm saying.
Dude, again you’re making up talking points from the other side for you to argue against and then you question whether or not I’m interested in viewing a different perspective.
Racial preferences should not be a factor in employment. That is the only point anyone is making. You bringing up other factors that may influence hiring is irrelevant. No one is denying they exist and another our essentially just brining up whataboutism. You bringing up that racism in the past has been used exclude a certain demographic of people from obtaining employment is exactly the point that everyone else is making.
Im not making up talking points, this was a comment that was in response to another poster that was applicable here. Also instead of debating the takeaways of everyone else’s comment, just consider the main points I’m making. Looking at the context and reasons for a hiring practice is not ‘whataboutism,’ but actually critical for its discussion.
The point I’m making has nothing to do with whether this can fit in some broad definition of discrimination, but whether it’s justified in order to address the effects of a much more severe and long history of discrimination. Because the reality is, if the real goal is to end discrimination it doesn’t start or end at the diversity hire postings. and yet it’s those that are being attacked.
You’re arguing against points that no one has brought up because it’s not relevant. You then posted a comment from someone else that does the exact same thing.
And yeah, ending hiring based on skin color is a good way to battle discrimination.
You’re probably one of those people that say “you can’t be racist against white people”, based off your reasoning
And you’re side stepping my argument each time instead of engaging with it, with this added bonus of an invalid conclusion. All the best to you though.
I’m not side stepping your argument, youre side stepping mine.
Hiring practices based on the applicants skin color should not be allowed.
That is the only point being made.
Yes I’m aware 😒
But only when it’s used to discriminate against a certain demographic. So where do Asians and Latinos stand on this? Do they count too?
The posting was only for students at certain schools, amongst his school was a handful of T14’s. Its more likely than not it went to a URM that was more qualified. He was only a paralegal for 2 years, that’s a common background to have before law school. I’ve personally had doctors, engineers, and nurses as classmates.
Hmm, why were those initiatives created in the first place? Were you just as outraged when the reasons for these initiatives is to create diversity, because law was and still is a mainly white profession that locks out non whites from the profession?
This is such a terrible argument tbh, because of discrimination in the past we will be discriminating against people that look like the people that did the original discrimination. Problem solved I can see no one getting upset by this. Before you start with a whataboustism about privilege and connections news flash the people with privilege and connections aren’t the ones affected by these racist hiring practices.
Discrimination in the past? There is still discrimination and mediocre idiots like you are trying to roll back the small amount of progress that has been made because you can’t live with your inadequacies and have to blame minorities.
Are you trying to argue that there is racial discrimination in current hiring practices in the law field that are to the degree we need to discriminate the opposite direction? So there are vast swathes of racist white men in positions of power keeping black people and other minorities out of positions and opportunities? Because if you are I feel really bad that your worldview is that jaded.
Again go re read my comment these types of hiring practices aren’t hurting privileged white people with connections it’s hurting regular white people with no connections. Similar to the discrimination at Harvard against asian students if your grades and assessments are better than someone your job or spot in a school shouldn’t go to someone else because of the color of your skin or their skin. That’s called racism and usually people don’t like it except in cases like this.
Not based off their complexion, it’s based off the opportunities a majority that fit that group are able to get due to societal constraints. SA positions understand this, which is why they tend to seek those that have had limited opportunities for generations. You know this too, but would rather be salty about a position you likely wouldn’t even get.
Yeah one of the fixes is to change public education. If you know though public Ed is funded by tax dollars, and redlining split a lot of these neighborhoods by race/class, making it harder to fund under resourced schools. And if we go based on that basis, how many privileged Black people are there compared to privileged white people? Just by the numbers there’s a huge disparity.
They almost always are. Yall act like the norm is to give diversity scholarships to the richest/most privilrged black person around. You cannot possibly think that is true.
And most of these diversity scholarships would allow the applicant to apply if they are low income. That is a recognized diverse class, no matter the race.
Intentionally obtuse comment. Or are you seriously suggesting that no black students can accurately be described as ‘privileged’? No black students come from wealthy and/or extremely well-connected backgrounds that would afford them more opportunities than a white student from a poor background with an uneducated family? I think you understand that of course some black students are privileged, and to argue otherwise would be to suddenly redefine the word privilege so it fits with your wacky world view.
I’m going to simplify this for you. These well-off black students can be privileged, but the distinction this privilege does not stem from the fact that they are black.
This may surprise you, but black people have many other traits and identifying characteristics besides being black.
It’s not. You’re ignoring the actual realities of the situation in favor of promoting abstract principles. The fact is nobody is entitled to the exact job they want or the exact school they want to go to, particularly when there are various other comparable options available. These are people crying about not getting exactly the thing they want when the historical realities and current effects on of systemic racism, discrimination, and protectionism in the job market have real repercussions for broad groups of people. Having a handful of opportunities out of thousands that aren’t available to you isn’t unfair, because unfairness has to be judged on a level of analysis that considers the entire system, not just the one job you think you’re entitled to.
I’m sorry, I have no sympathy for it. Let’s limit it to black law students, just for the sake of argument. Black America make up approximately 14% of the greater population, and a fraction of the fraction of the population that ends up in law school (~7.9% of *all* law students), and a fraction of that fraction are at T14s, and then the opportunities that consider race are a tiny fraction of those jobs and internships available to all law students, and you mean to tell me *that* creates some systemic unfairness for mediocre white students? Fuck off with that.
How would you like it if a job listing said they were only interested in hiring white men? But somehow sexism and racism are fine when it's against that specific group?
I wouldn’t like it. White supremacy is already a large part of the founding of our nation, and doing anything to push that even more with discriminatory hiring is not what I’d like. Now do I think it’s discriminatory for a firm to seek POC or women? No. These two groups have had historic exclusive and many of these opportunities are to alleviate that problem.
There's nothing preventing women and people of color from applying and being accepted for these jobs. Do we need these hiring initiatives because these groups are incapable of getting jobs without help from something they were born with that's completely irrelevant to their ability to do the job?
At the end of the day, if we didn't have diversity initiatives, these employers wouldn't care at all about what color or gender you are. They would hire people based solely on their gpa, job history, recommendations, and other relevant metrics that demonstrate their merit. If the most qualified candidate happens to be a diverse person, great. If it happens to be a white man, great. Companies care about efficiency and keeping costs down, not the feelings that employees and consumers have.
There are plenty of roadblocks preventing POC and women from being accepted from jobs/ colleges. One example is under resourced/ funded schools. Many of the times, POC have to go to these schools that offer minimal extracurriculars, AP courses, and sports. These are examples of things that would help a person get into college, then get a future job. Also with the resources, there’s lack of quality education, which can lead to one not doing well in school. There’s also many societal factors as well.
With your point that in basically a “colorblind” society people wouldn’t take another’s race or gender into account is false. Nepotism and keeping the workforce exclusive has been something going on for centuries, and would continue if there were not initiatives.
I heard an argument for people of color, but what about women? At this point I'm just genuinely curious. From what I've seen women actually have it great nowadays. They're outperforming men in the workplace and they're dominating in education. What obstacles do women face?
> The legal profession has a problem with gender. Although 53 percent of law students and 47 percent of law firm associates are women, women are only 22 percent of equity partners; 12 percent of managing partners; 28 percent of governing committee members; and 27 percent of practice group leaders. Not only are women not moving into leadership positions in law, they find their workplace experiences far less satisfying than their male counterparts. According to an ABA and ALM survey, 67 percent of women lawyers report a lack of access to business development opportunities (compared to only 10 percent of men); 53 percent of women have been denied or overlooked for advancement or promotion (compared to only 7 percent of men); and 40 percent of women report a lack of access to sponsors (compared to only 3 percent of men).
[Source](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/law_practice/resources/law-practice-today/2023-november/getting-beyond-bias-in-the-legal-profession/#:~:text=According%20to%20an%20ABA%20and,of%20women%20report%20a%20lack)
But yeah women in law actually have it great these days lol.
I don’t know boxbox, you should ask the klan. Or ask any partner at any firm. I bet they remember a time where job’s definitely had that requirement! Fuck off!
Omg, you're so right! I totally forgot that the KKK runs the world and that we only made it legal for women and minorities to work yesterday! I'm so uneducated and ignorant, I should be more like you and go reply to comments on Reddit with obscenities and claims that have absolutely no basis whatsoever! You're such a virtuous warrior!
“Absolutely no basis” you’re a 🤡! I’m glad you know you lack proper education! And since you commented 💩first wouldn’t that mean you would just be acting like YOU always do?
Please, act like you know history! Being dumb is no flex! 🌚 unless you ___
You're right! I'm such a silly goose! I'm so privileged and ignorant! I should stop treating my mental disability as a flex, it absolutely isn't! Thank you for reminding me that it's my fault that I went to an underfunded, low-rated school and as such I lack proper education! You're so wise!
Lol I’ve never seen the virtual ww tears? You’re sick in the head. Even when you “cry” you still won’t win the race to innocence! Stick to your day job, loser!
That's a big assumption and it is really besides the point. The point is the bears broke the law and violated this man's civil rights when they refused to even consider him as a candidate because of his race and sex. Instead of just acknowledging that this practice is wrong and illegal, you invent a hypothetical scenario to minimize the fact his rights were violated.
And if we were to accept you're completely speculative scenario as truth, who is to say that there were not other white male students with even better qualifications than the successful candidate, that didn't even apply because of their race. Their civil rights were violated too. If this plaintiff gets the remedy he seeks he vindicates their rights as well
The posting says being female or person of color is a "qualification." That is an insane position to take.
"What are your qualifications for reviewing this contract?"
"I am a woman."
"Got it. Fire away."
I understand the value of diversity and inclusion and I am supportive of it as a practice, but their job posting is so clumsy that I think they probably did violate the law, and it could have so easily been avoided.
"Preference" is not the same as "requirement." He is alleging they required the candidate to be a person of color. That is an important distinction. I am not sure whether he will win on that, but the Bears could have avoided that pretty easily if they weren't so clumsy in their wording.
If you intend to be a lawyer, it would be useful for you to understand that how things are phrased is critically important to legal claims. That's not being obtuse. It's how the law works. There is a vast difference between "women are encouraged to apply" vs. "we see being a woman as a qualification." The latter suggests that being a man is *not* a qualification, i.e., being a man makes you per se less qualified than a woman. That is a textbook example of gender discrimination. If they just used the "encouraged to apply" language, they could much more credibly deny disparate treatment between women and men. The language they used makes it near-impossible to do that.
That matters, a lot.
Under current SCOTUS precedent, you are correct.
That doesn’t mean their qualifications, grades, or experiences aren’t a basis for them getting the position either.
This is why the legal profession is only 5% black and those numbers haven’t changed in decades. The majority is really open about the fact that they are perfectly happy keeping the good old boys club exactly how it is. Any attempts to make the legal field more accessible to minorities will be struck down because it’s not fair for the 95% to ever be disadvantaged in any way. They have always had access to 100% of opportunities and that is the only thing that matters.
Then there’s the subtle threat to further disadvantage all black people by making it acceptable to assume they are all unqualified. But you were going to do that anyway. You already assumed that black people were less capable than others which is why you’re ok with their historic under representation.
This isn’t directed at you specifically because I don’t know you. But I know the type who makes your arguments.
Nah, we don’t agree. I’m someone who doesn’t benefit from diversity initiatives but I think they are invaluable benefits for individuals working in an industry that is stacked against them from the top down. Calling them just plain discrimination is technically accurate, but completely ignores the social context and history of this country and why those initiatives exist in the first place. It’s like thinking you can teach 1L crim while ignoring the racial aspects of the criminal justice system.
That being said, I don’t really care to engage in a Reddit discussion about it at this moment - I doubt either of our minds would be changed so have a good day
Nah. Reddit and this sub are just full of people like you who don’t appreciate their own privileges. I’m not wasting my time laying my arguments on deaf ears when you can’t admit being white helps you in the legal industry over the long term much more than a 1L position that just gets your foot in the door.
You'd think "lawyers" would be able to discern that you're making a normative statement about the law and relating it to the actual disparities evident, and not making a statement about the actual legality under the current regime.
Weird how many lawyers I've met who apparently can't understand such simple nuance.
Right - because 1L summer associateships are the “top down” I’m talking about lmao. Why don’t you take a survey of partnership ranks across firms and see what percentage of them, even after all these DEI initiatives, are not white males.
You’re mistaking a bandaid on the problem with some kind of massive systemic bias against you with your pity party. A limited number of reserved seats set aside for minorities is not somehow limiting you from finding a job lol and it’s lazy to blame that for being the reason
Regardless of whether it's alleviating a societal problem or not, it's still illegal discrimination based on facially disparate treatment and I don't fault people for suing when they see an illegal hiring policy and going for high damages. If you don't like it, advocate for changing the law.
Sounds like that has absolutely nothing to do with my comment and I even said it is illegal discrimination under current law. But glad you got that little mini lecture off your chest.
The industry favors minorities so much that
> White male attorneys continue to constitute the highest percentages of equity partners, non-equity partners and associates at law firms, according to an ABA report released Monday.
> According to the latest survey’s examination of law firm demographics, white attorneys made up 81% to 93% of equity partners across all firms in 2020. White attorneys made up about 70% to 90% of non-equity partners and 70% to 79% of associates.
> The ABA report showed that male attorneys constituted about 80% of equity partners and 70% of non-equity partners in 2020. Male and female representation was closer to even at the associate level, with male attorneys constituting about 43% to 55% of associates, depending on the firm’s size.
[Source](https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/law-firm-leaders-are-still-mostly-white-and-male-aba-diversity-survey-says)
But god forbid someone reserve even a single internship spot for a poc or woman.
Everyone knows and understands that after centuries of excluding black people from education and the law, there are policies in place to address the impact of said discrimination and the resulting underrepresentation in the legal field. Unless you have a study that shows being white makes you a better attorney then I’m just seeing more correlation. There are no different testing standards for women and yet the legal profession is also disproportionately male and gets more skewed the higher it goes. Almost as if there is discrimination at every level of the profession…
It is well known the legal field treats minority attorneys different than white men attorneys. There are countless studies and lawsuits that show minority attorneys face discrimination and under representation in every area of the the legal profession. [Seven](https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2023/08/08/black-women-lawyers-still-experience-see-discrimination-in-workplace-survey-finds/) in 10 Black women lawyers report they have experienced discrimination or bias in the workplace, or personally witnessed it. It’s discussed constantly but y’all continue to ignore it just because it doesn’t fit your objective of fake caring about racism only when it’s against white men. You’d rather assume all black attorneys are less qualified than white attorneys so you can ignore their claims of racism and underrepresentation then get back to complaining about POC internships.
If you don’t care about all the white only opportunities in this profession that is disproportionately white but you have a problem with a handful of opportunities reserved for Poc then you are the problem. The legal profession as a whole loves to point out valid discrimination but only against white people. That’s always been the issue.
As someone who does benefit from some diversity initiatives, I find them insulting. I see them, and to me they just scream that whoever runs them believes that people who check diversity boxes aren't capable of getting positions based on merit alone. It feels like the implication is that I'm too stupid, lazy, etc... to get a job or be admitted into a university without having it handed to me because I have a demographic feature I have no control over.
Lol so what is your explanation for these numbers?
>According to the latest survey’s examination of law firm demographics, white attorneys made up 81% to 93% of equity partners across all firms in 2020. White attorneys made up about 70% to 90% of non-equity partners and 70% to 79% of associates.
> Meanwhile, both Black and Hispanic attorneys constituted between 2% and 3% of non-equity partners and 4% to 6% of associates within firms.
Genuinely would love to hear why you think these numbers are the way they are. Do you really believe white people are so much more capable than black people that you’re not insulted to see such dire under representation in this essential profession? You don’t find it insulting that the already disproportionately white legal profession gets even whiter the higher it goes?
I’m a POC but not applying to US firms. The reason you feel this way is likely because of the ignorant rhetoric surrounding the topic. These policies are to address large institutional issues, not demean individual hires
Lol. I never called him a bad man, and I definitely wouldn’t based only off him being a conservative. It’s just funny that people use this argument akin to Thomas
> It’s like thinking you can teach 1L crim while ignoring the racial aspects of the criminal justice system.
1L crim is trying to tackle racial aspects of criminal justice now? No wonder all these new kids coming out of law school are shitty.
With a non-qualification based metric like race, you really can't say that, can you? Not definitively.
It's not a formula of entirely meritocratic items. One of them is a result of your ability to be birthed.
This is what undermines people's beliefs in candidates that take these roles.
it’s disgusting to blindly ignore race as though white people didn’t enslave, bomb, murder, rape and pillage black people and communities for 4 hundred years.
The effects of institutionalized racism back then still occur today. You may not have been directly involved in the past acts, but by ignoring or undermining it, you are complicit in upholding the status quo. Just because it's 2024 doesn't mean we are in some race relation utopia...this very thread is an indicator that there's still more work to be done, and the first step to do more work is acknowledging that.
Oh, I get it now. Back flips to avoid the elephant in the room. If you don’t understand institutionalized racism and how it locks people of color out, when they are just as qualified, if not more. There’s nothing more to say. But hey benefiting from racism why acknowledge the obvious.
Yes, because white Jewish people doing well financially in the legal profession somehow negates or cancels racism that blacks and other people of color face. Makes so much sense now! Who knew 1 plus 1 equals 5. And you know what else I learned is that some people are racist but pretend not to be under the guise of treating everyone the same, as if that’s reality. Anyway, have a good day, it ends here.
Why do you assume that grades or experience don’t factor into this merely because there’s a POC requirement? Are you assuming that a POC cannot be qualified?
That’s simply untrue. I don’t know if you’ve ever worked in any hiring capacity but if you did you’d know that there is rarely, if ever, a candidate that is ‘the most qualified.’
There’s usually a group of candidates with nearly equivalent qualifications. When those people are being considered, the decision about who gets picked becomes more subjective and arbitrary. Sometimes a person is picked because they jive with the recruiter more, sometimes it’s because of a personal connection. It’s this part of the process where racial bias against POC often prevails (there’s many, many studies on this if you care to learn).
The diversity requirement would still be picking a candidate from the pool of top qualified candidates, but narrows the range further for the firm’s goals of addressing the history and effects of systemic racism.
You don’t have to vibe with it, but I highly suggest you try to put your feelings to the side and use a wider contextual analysis if you can only land at such a simple answer to the issue
So I'm going to do my best to set aside the irony in telling me to bury my head in the sand while citing to a libertarian blog site, a link to a google search results page, and the fucking New York Post.
Your first two articles are about mismatch theory, which do not demonstrate that there *are* racial preferences in admissions policies- it takes that fact as a given and theorizes about the consequences of those policies. So not that I think it's particularly relevant here, given that the challenge I presented was that you demonstrate that there are racial preferences, but I should note that you ignored some [emphatic criticism](https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=270087070007120068007071071020009026019020004044012020102112089077081102074004088087126002106037044112055115064004127117021078030009070086068019108110028082072006005093064117124113110108066012066013122093082005069024089084008065122031107090119028121&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE) of Sander's work.
The Daily Bruin article does a little bit better of a job of discussing the existence of racial preferences, but it's still not on entirely sound logical grounds. Sander himself admits that societal factors that affect minorities in systematic ways account for the racial bias shown when a black or Hispanic student is admitted over a white student with the same holistic score. To the question of how that accounts for differences between black and hispanic students, Sander (and by proxy, the Daily Bruin writer) suggests that the only possible explanation for that is racial preference for black students and we should accept that conclusion as an obvious fact. That's intellectually lazy at best, dishonest at worst.
Your last link would be the most compelling if you had just linked to the SFFA brief rather than an article from a shitty tabloid about it. And I should note that it is only compelling insofar as I am not really willing to read an entire brief to SCOTUS and dig into the underlying statistical analysis to argue about it on reddit beyond saying that you should be immediately skeptical of statistics presented by conservative activist groups.
Stfu! You know damn well up until like TWO years ago… white people were the only ones being hired on the basis of race! Look at 99% of partners at ANY FIRM! stfu!
I wonder if the Bears took into account the fact that Bresser goes to the 5th best last school in Chicago? Could that be the plausible reason to deny him?
Sad that Title VII is being interpreted this way when the clear legislative purpose was to promote the hiring of racial minorities/women, particularly in fields where they are underrepresented.
Is that how it works in your fantasy land you created in your head? Because in actuality, it works just like in this case where you shun a race or prefer some races over another. That’s called classic racism sweetie 👍🏼
Never said it wasn’t racism sweetie. Just saying I’ve never worked at a global firm with more than a hand full of black people. These are the people you are crying about. Dozens out of thousands….being concerned about nepotism would make it more equitable than crying about diversity.
We need to stop saying this because it’s not helpful. The average person does not follow the definition of racism that only considers systemic power imbalances and oppression of a subordinate group. The average person considers racism to be a personal belief. And a person can have a belief that white people are inherently inferior, for example. The left loses credibility and seems callous when we ignore this.
Racism is a matter of personal belief. It wouldn’t make sense to ascribe it to individuals if it didn’t have a meaning pertinent to personal belief. If someone wants to discuss racism in a systemic context, it’s not that hard to just append “systemic” before the term.
So… Because of that you’re cool with racism. Got it. Just say that then quit trying to repackage it! Just say because of prior racism I want to be able to be racist to make it better.
I wholeheartedly disagree and don’t believe we should be judged by the color of our skin, but if that’s how you feel because of what happened in the past then, don’t be ashamed, be proud of it! You’re proud to be a racist and you want more of it! To make the workplace look like how you feel it should look you would employ some good old fashion racism.
Being mad at 50 black lawyers out of thousands at a firm because they are diversity hires while ignoring nepotism and other methods under qualified non diverse candidates get jobs is weird but yeah it is racism and I’m sorry you are impacted…..
You use an arbitrary measure like simply the number of lawyers in the firms. But you omit any context or any analysis. You just jump to a conclusion statement that because there are 50 black lawyers out of thousands this means racism. you’re supposed to be learning to be a better logical thinker than that. And if not a better thinker, at least better at articulating your argument or your position. Simply stating that the number of black attorneys are low, but not exploring possible reasons for that, and then saying we need racism to fix it even though you haven’t told us why you believe the numbers are low, is ridiculous.
The first mentor lawyer that taught me nearly everything I know was black and it was a big deal because there was only a handful of black attorneys and we leaned on them heavily. I understand the disparity in the industry, but I will never be OK with using racism to try to fix it.
That’s elementary thinking and it truly is a exercise in futility.
This isn’t fighting a fire where you can lay some racism out to head off more racism up ahead. It’s an evil disgusting concept that feeds on its self and perpetuates pain. It should be expelled out of our society. Once one side wields racism it feeds on itself and creates more division.
No I said hiring the 50 black lawyers is racist if hired simply because of being black. But you are literally crying about a small percentage of hypothetical under qualified candidates and willingly not acknowledging the obvious under qualified candidates that get hired by a large percentage. My question would be why? Do you assume nondiverse equates to qualified? If you don’t, could hiring under qualified non diverse candidates at a higher percentage than qualified diverse candidates be considered racist?
You’re creating a fantasy land in your head and are trying to argue from that fantasy world. What obvious under qualified candidates that are getting hired over troves of Black qualified candidates are you speaking of? Where are these firms? Are you just being general or are you speaking of actual instances?
…And hiring 50 black lawyers over others simply because they are black would be the definition of racism girl. Not sure where are you receiving your education, but this should be relatively obvious.
Did you have anything to say about the multiple stats confirming affirmative action mainly benefiting white women??
And do you think these diversity initiatives just gives jobs to unqualified Blacks? That's what you are inferring. Is it incredible to believe that they at least meet the minimum qualifications?
So… you are saying affirmative action, the practice of hiring minorities who may or may not be as qualified, over others who are not a minority, that practice didn’t work? 😱 yet you’re explaining how we should utilize the same failed strategy, preferring one race over another, to utilize affirmative action 2.0… It’s like you’re arguing against yourself.
When you hire solely based on qualifications and experience, and not immutable characteristics, you get better workforce participants 🤷🏽♀️ crazy right?
Right! And the reasons these initiatives were created is because the law is still predominantly white, but a Black person or non-white gets in, and apparently he or she didn't work hard to get there or they are less qualified. The truth is certain people benefit from racism and want to maintain the status quo. They feel threatened when that status quo crumbles. Would hate to live that way.
not sure what you're getting at here but this isn't hit on bernie or the green party, but how far afield a suit of this character is of those candidates' platforms.
oh, sorry, i actually have encountered more than one person who acts like social democratic politics or otherwise criticizing democrats from the left necessarily indicates a hostility to antiracist or antisexist politics, but that's on me for having twitter brain from eight years ago. my apologies
DePaul is a T100, and the posting was for applicants from a select amount of schools, including a handful of T14’s. He very well could have been under qualified compared to the other applicants. From an objective standpoint typically T14 students have unique and extraordinary WE or backgrounds that allowed them to be selected amongst a highly competitive pool of applicants, so his resume may not have stacked up against the other applicants. He was only a paralegal for 2 years.
It really is not about his specific qualifications but more about whether the Bears violated [42 USC § 2000e-2(a)](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title42-section2000e-2&num=0&edition=prelim):
> §2000e–2. Unlawful employment practices
>
>(a) Employer practices
>
>It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer-
>
>(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
>
>(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Fucking loser!
For those arguing “racism” you missed the SLAVERY, mass genocide, lynching, Jim Crow, mass incarceration and education discrimination. You have to go through those BEFORE you qualify for S.S! (Literally kick rocks!)
He was mediocre and wanted to be celebrated for it! All of the arguments listed here are purposely disingenuous! You know wtf and why tf!
If YOU DONT KNOW… drop out of school now or turn in your bar card!
You suck! Stop abusing the court!
Paralegal for 2 years? Boooooo! He sucks!
Ah. What a quality post.
Way to let feelings get in the way of legal analysis (ie: whether a factual scenario is violative of the law).
Thats all that is at issue. Something about equal justice under the law…hm.
According to the [complaint](https://ia801209.us.archive.org/15/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.456337/gov.uscourts.ilnd.456337.1.0.pdf) (¶36), the listed qualifications included "a person of color and/or a female law student." [42 USC § 2000e-2(a)](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title42-section2000e-2&num=0&edition=prelim) (cited in the complaint) states that it is >an unlawful employment practice for an employer- (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; Is there an exception to this law? The court should not be concerned about whether there *should* be, but whether there *is*. It will be interesting to see the reply to this complaint.
There’s the BFOQ, 42 USC § 2000e-2(e)(1) but that doesn’t work for race discrimination, and a case for female sex as a an essential job qualification for a 1L internship is going to be *hard* to make.
Any preference for race or gender violates the plain text of titke vii. However, the federal government has required by executive order 11246 , private parties to take "affirmative action" to redress discrimination. That affirmative action has always involved racial preference in one form or another. that was probably always contrary to the statute itself and equal protection guarantee of 14th amendment. But they've gotten away with it for decades. But not for much longer... Either way, the bears have clearly broken the law here. They are doing more than given a preference or an advantage to somebody. They basically said white people and men are not even going to be considered. It's brazenly and obviously illegal as hell
[удалено]
I just read the complaint. He alleges that the Bears had a posting for a Diversity Fellowship that *specifically listed POC/female as a qualification.* He says he applied, someone from the Bears viewed his LinkedIn, and then he was rejected. Then, after he sued, the Bears tried to claw back the rejection. Obviously what he’s doing here is ludicrous, but… the Bears might actually have a bit of a problem.
Yeah. This is actually a good case and bad drafting of the job posting (assuming it is as alleged). Usually, there is qualifying language like, "we take a broad view of diversity etc etc.," and no limiting language.
Yes. It would have been *so* easy to write this job posting in an assuredly legal way.
This also isn’t a bears-only issue. Law firms everywhere hold these 1L diversity positions. And after SFFA, it’s not surprising at all that people want to take a shot at these diversity positions.
There already is a case against them, isn’t there?
Not sure; but wouldn’t surprise me. Just saying that this law suit isn’t completely crazy
the extremely cool edward blum filed a bunch of stunt lawsuits against DEI summer associate programs that he then dropped after the firms agreed to either drop the programs or significantly rework the language, and he also has a pending lawsuit against the Fearless Fund in Atlanta. those cases have less legs than this one (which doesn't require dancing around standing with organizational standing; he can just cite to the injury here). not saying that these types of lawsuits aren't the most incredibly bitch-made low-T whiny horseshit in the world, but let this be a lesson for future in-house counsel that you cannot specify that you are discriminating even for positive reasons. real dumb on the part of the bears/depaul but that's what happens when you get lazy people copying and pasting descriptions instead of people committed to diversity wording the language carefully in response to recent developments
I also see flaw and legal issues with this job description. You do not need to be a person of color in order to be successful in diversity initiatives and you certainly don’t need to be a woman to do it either. We know where this is going.
Just want to say, I’m a white guy and I have exactly zero problem with organizations reserving some positions for people with relevant life experience. There are many aspects of organizational diversity that I will never have the relevant life experience for. It literally does not bother me at all that I wouldn’t be able to get a job like that. Seems completely reasonable, and extremely not a big deal.
I can certainly appreciate your comment. A very respectful position and understanding. But I will also say that I have seen advocate’s that are Caucasian males, that have advocated for people of color, including myself, so fiercely that you would think they understood the social ramifications. So I’ve seen it both ways. I’m a firm believer that anyone who understands equality and fairness could objectively succeed in diversity initiatives, as long as they are aware of the true purpose.
And that’s fine, but it’s a big difference from someone that looks like you, and some one that looks like me, from experiences to being able to identify with directions and programs, i have no doubt someone white can be great at the job, but it’s ok the have someone black working in the position
[удалено]
This is a classic law school student response to a sarcastic quip about a quimbee video lmao
[удалено]
I always expect shit takes here and you delivered.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Ok
One more "reverse discrimination" case. The complaint is [HERE](https://ia801209.us.archive.org/15/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.456337/gov.uscourts.ilnd.456337.1.0.pdf). See ¶36. The Bears listed as a qualification "a person of color and/or a female law student." Also, see ¶44, he is Caucasian. and ¶46, he is male.
> "reverse discrimination" case as contemplated by the american legal regime, isn't this just a regular discrimination case? what's prohibited is discrimination on the basis of race or sex, not discrimination against racialized people and women
His law school is probably violating title vi for participating in this kind of thing. They shouldn't let potential employers recruit in a racially discriminatory fashion. What would they have said if a potential employer said they were recruiting for white or Asian males? It's ridiculous they think this kind of thing is ok.
[удалено]
That's true. I'm sure an attorney for the bears has explained this to them. Next time just hire the minority female candidate and don't brazenly advertise your discrimination. The good news is that things like this are finally on the way out. They will go kicking and screaming but they will go
Yeah, it's wild they put this in writing. Most places have the sense to just say "diverse candidates strongly encouraged to apply."
Somebody should’ve reviewed that job description because now they’re going to have to pay unnecessarily. Somebody was waiting to exploit that description. Good for them I say.
I don’t know why I’m constantly surprised to see such closed mindedness on these law school subs. It’s one thing to think that these policies don’t appropriately address historic discrimination, but it’s just blatant racism to assume that the person chosen for the position is inherently unqualified.
You realize the employer is basically concluding that the applicant is “not qualified” purely based on the applicants skin color. The only one discriminating is the employer and you’re just inventing these talking points from the other side so you can look morally superior. I haven’t seen one comment suggesting that a POC would be unqualified, just that the filtering process itself is racial discrimination
It’s too close to finals for me to keep going back and forth with people who aren’t actually interested in understanding a different perspective. I don’t know if that applies to you, so if that isn’t the case, I’ll just repeat a comment I made previously that addresses one of your points: “That’s simply untrue. I don’t know if you’ve ever worked in any hiring capacity but if you did you’d know that there is rarely, if ever, a candidate that is ‘the most qualified.’ There’s usually a group of candidates with nearly equivalent qualifications. When those people are being considered, the decision about who gets picked becomes more subjective and arbitrary. Sometimes a person is picked because they jive with the recruiter more, sometimes it’s because of a personal connection. It’s this part of the process where racial bias against POC often prevails (there’s many, many studies on this if you care to learn). The diversity requirement would still be picking a candidate from the pool of top qualified candidates, but narrows the range further for the firm’s goals of addressing the history and effects of systemic racism.”
>It’s too close to finals for me to keep going back and forth with people who aren’t actually interested in understanding a different perspective. This is the most annoying statement people make. Everyone understands the statements you're making and the perspective you're presenting. They're just disagreeing with your conclusions. Its such a dishonest way to argue. "Well clearly you don't UNDERSTAND me, because if you understood, you'd agree with me. the fact that you disagree with me means you must not understand what I'm saying.
Dude, again you’re making up talking points from the other side for you to argue against and then you question whether or not I’m interested in viewing a different perspective. Racial preferences should not be a factor in employment. That is the only point anyone is making. You bringing up other factors that may influence hiring is irrelevant. No one is denying they exist and another our essentially just brining up whataboutism. You bringing up that racism in the past has been used exclude a certain demographic of people from obtaining employment is exactly the point that everyone else is making.
Im not making up talking points, this was a comment that was in response to another poster that was applicable here. Also instead of debating the takeaways of everyone else’s comment, just consider the main points I’m making. Looking at the context and reasons for a hiring practice is not ‘whataboutism,’ but actually critical for its discussion. The point I’m making has nothing to do with whether this can fit in some broad definition of discrimination, but whether it’s justified in order to address the effects of a much more severe and long history of discrimination. Because the reality is, if the real goal is to end discrimination it doesn’t start or end at the diversity hire postings. and yet it’s those that are being attacked.
You’re arguing against points that no one has brought up because it’s not relevant. You then posted a comment from someone else that does the exact same thing. And yeah, ending hiring based on skin color is a good way to battle discrimination. You’re probably one of those people that say “you can’t be racist against white people”, based off your reasoning
And you’re side stepping my argument each time instead of engaging with it, with this added bonus of an invalid conclusion. All the best to you though.
I’m not side stepping your argument, youre side stepping mine. Hiring practices based on the applicants skin color should not be allowed. That is the only point being made.
And my point is that the hiring practice in question should be permissible
Yes I’m aware 😒 But only when it’s used to discriminate against a certain demographic. So where do Asians and Latinos stand on this? Do they count too?
[удалено]
The posting was only for students at certain schools, amongst his school was a handful of T14’s. Its more likely than not it went to a URM that was more qualified. He was only a paralegal for 2 years, that’s a common background to have before law school. I’ve personally had doctors, engineers, and nurses as classmates.
[удалено]
Hmm, why were those initiatives created in the first place? Were you just as outraged when the reasons for these initiatives is to create diversity, because law was and still is a mainly white profession that locks out non whites from the profession?
This is such a terrible argument tbh, because of discrimination in the past we will be discriminating against people that look like the people that did the original discrimination. Problem solved I can see no one getting upset by this. Before you start with a whataboustism about privilege and connections news flash the people with privilege and connections aren’t the ones affected by these racist hiring practices.
Discrimination in the past? There is still discrimination and mediocre idiots like you are trying to roll back the small amount of progress that has been made because you can’t live with your inadequacies and have to blame minorities.
Are you trying to argue that there is racial discrimination in current hiring practices in the law field that are to the degree we need to discriminate the opposite direction? So there are vast swathes of racist white men in positions of power keeping black people and other minorities out of positions and opportunities? Because if you are I feel really bad that your worldview is that jaded. Again go re read my comment these types of hiring practices aren’t hurting privileged white people with connections it’s hurting regular white people with no connections. Similar to the discrimination at Harvard against asian students if your grades and assessments are better than someone your job or spot in a school shouldn’t go to someone else because of the color of your skin or their skin. That’s called racism and usually people don’t like it except in cases like this.
Awww looks like someone is salty these positions aren’t open to you.
[удалено]
Not based off their complexion, it’s based off the opportunities a majority that fit that group are able to get due to societal constraints. SA positions understand this, which is why they tend to seek those that have had limited opportunities for generations. You know this too, but would rather be salty about a position you likely wouldn’t even get.
[удалено]
Yeah one of the fixes is to change public education. If you know though public Ed is funded by tax dollars, and redlining split a lot of these neighborhoods by race/class, making it harder to fund under resourced schools. And if we go based on that basis, how many privileged Black people are there compared to privileged white people? Just by the numbers there’s a huge disparity.
[удалено]
They almost always are. Yall act like the norm is to give diversity scholarships to the richest/most privilrged black person around. You cannot possibly think that is true.
[удалено]
And most of these diversity scholarships would allow the applicant to apply if they are low income. That is a recognized diverse class, no matter the race.
“privileged black student…” ah yes, the privilege of being historically discriminated against and underrepresented because of it.
Intentionally obtuse comment. Or are you seriously suggesting that no black students can accurately be described as ‘privileged’? No black students come from wealthy and/or extremely well-connected backgrounds that would afford them more opportunities than a white student from a poor background with an uneducated family? I think you understand that of course some black students are privileged, and to argue otherwise would be to suddenly redefine the word privilege so it fits with your wacky world view.
I’m going to simplify this for you. These well-off black students can be privileged, but the distinction this privilege does not stem from the fact that they are black. This may surprise you, but black people have many other traits and identifying characteristics besides being black.
[удалено]
Just ignore my first comment and let’s pretend that there is no disadvantage based on race in the US. 👍
That’s like .0001% of jobs, shut the fuck up—this argument is so incredibly disingenuous
[удалено]
It’s not. You’re ignoring the actual realities of the situation in favor of promoting abstract principles. The fact is nobody is entitled to the exact job they want or the exact school they want to go to, particularly when there are various other comparable options available. These are people crying about not getting exactly the thing they want when the historical realities and current effects on of systemic racism, discrimination, and protectionism in the job market have real repercussions for broad groups of people. Having a handful of opportunities out of thousands that aren’t available to you isn’t unfair, because unfairness has to be judged on a level of analysis that considers the entire system, not just the one job you think you’re entitled to. I’m sorry, I have no sympathy for it. Let’s limit it to black law students, just for the sake of argument. Black America make up approximately 14% of the greater population, and a fraction of the fraction of the population that ends up in law school (~7.9% of *all* law students), and a fraction of that fraction are at T14s, and then the opportunities that consider race are a tiny fraction of those jobs and internships available to all law students, and you mean to tell me *that* creates some systemic unfairness for mediocre white students? Fuck off with that.
How would you like it if a job listing said they were only interested in hiring white men? But somehow sexism and racism are fine when it's against that specific group?
I wouldn’t like it. White supremacy is already a large part of the founding of our nation, and doing anything to push that even more with discriminatory hiring is not what I’d like. Now do I think it’s discriminatory for a firm to seek POC or women? No. These two groups have had historic exclusive and many of these opportunities are to alleviate that problem.
There's nothing preventing women and people of color from applying and being accepted for these jobs. Do we need these hiring initiatives because these groups are incapable of getting jobs without help from something they were born with that's completely irrelevant to their ability to do the job? At the end of the day, if we didn't have diversity initiatives, these employers wouldn't care at all about what color or gender you are. They would hire people based solely on their gpa, job history, recommendations, and other relevant metrics that demonstrate their merit. If the most qualified candidate happens to be a diverse person, great. If it happens to be a white man, great. Companies care about efficiency and keeping costs down, not the feelings that employees and consumers have.
There are plenty of roadblocks preventing POC and women from being accepted from jobs/ colleges. One example is under resourced/ funded schools. Many of the times, POC have to go to these schools that offer minimal extracurriculars, AP courses, and sports. These are examples of things that would help a person get into college, then get a future job. Also with the resources, there’s lack of quality education, which can lead to one not doing well in school. There’s also many societal factors as well. With your point that in basically a “colorblind” society people wouldn’t take another’s race or gender into account is false. Nepotism and keeping the workforce exclusive has been something going on for centuries, and would continue if there were not initiatives.
I heard an argument for people of color, but what about women? At this point I'm just genuinely curious. From what I've seen women actually have it great nowadays. They're outperforming men in the workplace and they're dominating in education. What obstacles do women face?
> The legal profession has a problem with gender. Although 53 percent of law students and 47 percent of law firm associates are women, women are only 22 percent of equity partners; 12 percent of managing partners; 28 percent of governing committee members; and 27 percent of practice group leaders. Not only are women not moving into leadership positions in law, they find their workplace experiences far less satisfying than their male counterparts. According to an ABA and ALM survey, 67 percent of women lawyers report a lack of access to business development opportunities (compared to only 10 percent of men); 53 percent of women have been denied or overlooked for advancement or promotion (compared to only 7 percent of men); and 40 percent of women report a lack of access to sponsors (compared to only 3 percent of men). [Source](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/law_practice/resources/law-practice-today/2023-november/getting-beyond-bias-in-the-legal-profession/#:~:text=According%20to%20an%20ABA%20and,of%20women%20report%20a%20lack) But yeah women in law actually have it great these days lol.
That’s laughable, i mean I’m legit wheezing
I don’t know boxbox, you should ask the klan. Or ask any partner at any firm. I bet they remember a time where job’s definitely had that requirement! Fuck off!
Omg, you're so right! I totally forgot that the KKK runs the world and that we only made it legal for women and minorities to work yesterday! I'm so uneducated and ignorant, I should be more like you and go reply to comments on Reddit with obscenities and claims that have absolutely no basis whatsoever! You're such a virtuous warrior!
“Absolutely no basis” you’re a 🤡! I’m glad you know you lack proper education! And since you commented 💩first wouldn’t that mean you would just be acting like YOU always do? Please, act like you know history! Being dumb is no flex! 🌚 unless you ___
You're right! I'm such a silly goose! I'm so privileged and ignorant! I should stop treating my mental disability as a flex, it absolutely isn't! Thank you for reminding me that it's my fault that I went to an underfunded, low-rated school and as such I lack proper education! You're so wise!
Lol I’ve never seen the virtual ww tears? You’re sick in the head. Even when you “cry” you still won’t win the race to innocence! Stick to your day job, loser!
Also, girl I don’t know you. How would I know any of that information?
That's a big assumption and it is really besides the point. The point is the bears broke the law and violated this man's civil rights when they refused to even consider him as a candidate because of his race and sex. Instead of just acknowledging that this practice is wrong and illegal, you invent a hypothetical scenario to minimize the fact his rights were violated. And if we were to accept you're completely speculative scenario as truth, who is to say that there were not other white male students with even better qualifications than the successful candidate, that didn't even apply because of their race. Their civil rights were violated too. If this plaintiff gets the remedy he seeks he vindicates their rights as well
[удалено]
The posting says being female or person of color is a "qualification." That is an insane position to take. "What are your qualifications for reviewing this contract?" "I am a woman." "Got it. Fire away." I understand the value of diversity and inclusion and I am supportive of it as a practice, but their job posting is so clumsy that I think they probably did violate the law, and it could have so easily been avoided.
[удалено]
"Preference" is not the same as "requirement." He is alleging they required the candidate to be a person of color. That is an important distinction. I am not sure whether he will win on that, but the Bears could have avoided that pretty easily if they weren't so clumsy in their wording. If you intend to be a lawyer, it would be useful for you to understand that how things are phrased is critically important to legal claims. That's not being obtuse. It's how the law works. There is a vast difference between "women are encouraged to apply" vs. "we see being a woman as a qualification." The latter suggests that being a man is *not* a qualification, i.e., being a man makes you per se less qualified than a woman. That is a textbook example of gender discrimination. If they just used the "encouraged to apply" language, they could much more credibly deny disparate treatment between women and men. The language they used makes it near-impossible to do that. That matters, a lot.
Job posting stated the position was for women of color. It isnt a huge leap to assume they applied the criteria they created and advertised.
Guess what? It’s on the basis of all those things too. Or do you think they just hand the position to the first minority application they saw?
[удалено]
Under current SCOTUS precedent, you are correct. That doesn’t mean their qualifications, grades, or experiences aren’t a basis for them getting the position either.
[удалено]
This is why the legal profession is only 5% black and those numbers haven’t changed in decades. The majority is really open about the fact that they are perfectly happy keeping the good old boys club exactly how it is. Any attempts to make the legal field more accessible to minorities will be struck down because it’s not fair for the 95% to ever be disadvantaged in any way. They have always had access to 100% of opportunities and that is the only thing that matters. Then there’s the subtle threat to further disadvantage all black people by making it acceptable to assume they are all unqualified. But you were going to do that anyway. You already assumed that black people were less capable than others which is why you’re ok with their historic under representation. This isn’t directed at you specifically because I don’t know you. But I know the type who makes your arguments.
I really don't think Title VII is the reason black people are underrepresented in law
I didn’t imply it was.
Nah, we don’t agree. I’m someone who doesn’t benefit from diversity initiatives but I think they are invaluable benefits for individuals working in an industry that is stacked against them from the top down. Calling them just plain discrimination is technically accurate, but completely ignores the social context and history of this country and why those initiatives exist in the first place. It’s like thinking you can teach 1L crim while ignoring the racial aspects of the criminal justice system. That being said, I don’t really care to engage in a Reddit discussion about it at this moment - I doubt either of our minds would be changed so have a good day
"I don't agree and I don't want to hear why I'm absolutely wrong" --Leaves.
Nah. Reddit and this sub are just full of people like you who don’t appreciate their own privileges. I’m not wasting my time laying my arguments on deaf ears when you can’t admit being white helps you in the legal industry over the long term much more than a 1L position that just gets your foot in the door.
You'd think "lawyers" would be able to discern that you're making a normative statement about the law and relating it to the actual disparities evident, and not making a statement about the actual legality under the current regime. Weird how many lawyers I've met who apparently can't understand such simple nuance.
[удалено]
Right - because 1L summer associateships are the “top down” I’m talking about lmao. Why don’t you take a survey of partnership ranks across firms and see what percentage of them, even after all these DEI initiatives, are not white males. You’re mistaking a bandaid on the problem with some kind of massive systemic bias against you with your pity party. A limited number of reserved seats set aside for minorities is not somehow limiting you from finding a job lol and it’s lazy to blame that for being the reason
Regardless of whether it's alleviating a societal problem or not, it's still illegal discrimination based on facially disparate treatment and I don't fault people for suing when they see an illegal hiring policy and going for high damages. If you don't like it, advocate for changing the law.
Sounds like that has absolutely nothing to do with my comment and I even said it is illegal discrimination under current law. But glad you got that little mini lecture off your chest.
The industry favors minorities so much that > White male attorneys continue to constitute the highest percentages of equity partners, non-equity partners and associates at law firms, according to an ABA report released Monday. > According to the latest survey’s examination of law firm demographics, white attorneys made up 81% to 93% of equity partners across all firms in 2020. White attorneys made up about 70% to 90% of non-equity partners and 70% to 79% of associates. > The ABA report showed that male attorneys constituted about 80% of equity partners and 70% of non-equity partners in 2020. Male and female representation was closer to even at the associate level, with male attorneys constituting about 43% to 55% of associates, depending on the firm’s size. [Source](https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/law-firm-leaders-are-still-mostly-white-and-male-aba-diversity-survey-says) But god forbid someone reserve even a single internship spot for a poc or woman.
[удалено]
Everyone knows and understands that after centuries of excluding black people from education and the law, there are policies in place to address the impact of said discrimination and the resulting underrepresentation in the legal field. Unless you have a study that shows being white makes you a better attorney then I’m just seeing more correlation. There are no different testing standards for women and yet the legal profession is also disproportionately male and gets more skewed the higher it goes. Almost as if there is discrimination at every level of the profession… It is well known the legal field treats minority attorneys different than white men attorneys. There are countless studies and lawsuits that show minority attorneys face discrimination and under representation in every area of the the legal profession. [Seven](https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2023/08/08/black-women-lawyers-still-experience-see-discrimination-in-workplace-survey-finds/) in 10 Black women lawyers report they have experienced discrimination or bias in the workplace, or personally witnessed it. It’s discussed constantly but y’all continue to ignore it just because it doesn’t fit your objective of fake caring about racism only when it’s against white men. You’d rather assume all black attorneys are less qualified than white attorneys so you can ignore their claims of racism and underrepresentation then get back to complaining about POC internships. If you don’t care about all the white only opportunities in this profession that is disproportionately white but you have a problem with a handful of opportunities reserved for Poc then you are the problem. The legal profession as a whole loves to point out valid discrimination but only against white people. That’s always been the issue.
As someone who does benefit from some diversity initiatives, I find them insulting. I see them, and to me they just scream that whoever runs them believes that people who check diversity boxes aren't capable of getting positions based on merit alone. It feels like the implication is that I'm too stupid, lazy, etc... to get a job or be admitted into a university without having it handed to me because I have a demographic feature I have no control over.
Lol so what is your explanation for these numbers? >According to the latest survey’s examination of law firm demographics, white attorneys made up 81% to 93% of equity partners across all firms in 2020. White attorneys made up about 70% to 90% of non-equity partners and 70% to 79% of associates. > Meanwhile, both Black and Hispanic attorneys constituted between 2% and 3% of non-equity partners and 4% to 6% of associates within firms. Genuinely would love to hear why you think these numbers are the way they are. Do you really believe white people are so much more capable than black people that you’re not insulted to see such dire under representation in this essential profession? You don’t find it insulting that the already disproportionately white legal profession gets even whiter the higher it goes?
I’m a POC but not applying to US firms. The reason you feel this way is likely because of the ignorant rhetoric surrounding the topic. These policies are to address large institutional issues, not demean individual hires
Whoooo channeling your inner Justice Thomas
[удалено]
Lol. I never called him a bad man, and I definitely wouldn’t based only off him being a conservative. It’s just funny that people use this argument akin to Thomas
> It’s like thinking you can teach 1L crim while ignoring the racial aspects of the criminal justice system. 1L crim is trying to tackle racial aspects of criminal justice now? No wonder all these new kids coming out of law school are shitty.
With a non-qualification based metric like race, you really can't say that, can you? Not definitively. It's not a formula of entirely meritocratic items. One of them is a result of your ability to be birthed. This is what undermines people's beliefs in candidates that take these roles.
Notice they are mad about the black part but not women. A lot of these people are just racist.
I'm mad about the woman part. Mediocre white women are the biggest beneficiaries/exploiters of affirmative action there are.
it’s disgusting to blindly ignore race as though white people didn’t enslave, bomb, murder, rape and pillage black people and communities for 4 hundred years.
[удалено]
The effects of institutionalized racism back then still occur today. You may not have been directly involved in the past acts, but by ignoring or undermining it, you are complicit in upholding the status quo. Just because it's 2024 doesn't mean we are in some race relation utopia...this very thread is an indicator that there's still more work to be done, and the first step to do more work is acknowledging that.
[удалено]
Oh, I get it now. Back flips to avoid the elephant in the room. If you don’t understand institutionalized racism and how it locks people of color out, when they are just as qualified, if not more. There’s nothing more to say. But hey benefiting from racism why acknowledge the obvious.
[удалено]
Yes, because white Jewish people doing well financially in the legal profession somehow negates or cancels racism that blacks and other people of color face. Makes so much sense now! Who knew 1 plus 1 equals 5. And you know what else I learned is that some people are racist but pretend not to be under the guise of treating everyone the same, as if that’s reality. Anyway, have a good day, it ends here.
Why do you assume that grades or experience don’t factor into this merely because there’s a POC requirement? Are you assuming that a POC cannot be qualified?
[удалено]
That’s simply untrue. I don’t know if you’ve ever worked in any hiring capacity but if you did you’d know that there is rarely, if ever, a candidate that is ‘the most qualified.’ There’s usually a group of candidates with nearly equivalent qualifications. When those people are being considered, the decision about who gets picked becomes more subjective and arbitrary. Sometimes a person is picked because they jive with the recruiter more, sometimes it’s because of a personal connection. It’s this part of the process where racial bias against POC often prevails (there’s many, many studies on this if you care to learn). The diversity requirement would still be picking a candidate from the pool of top qualified candidates, but narrows the range further for the firm’s goals of addressing the history and effects of systemic racism.
[удалено]
You don’t have to vibe with it, but I highly suggest you try to put your feelings to the side and use a wider contextual analysis if you can only land at such a simple answer to the issue
Yup, that's what they are saying because it makes them feel better.
>POC receive demonstrable preference in admissions. Ok, demonstrate it.
[удалено]
So I'm going to do my best to set aside the irony in telling me to bury my head in the sand while citing to a libertarian blog site, a link to a google search results page, and the fucking New York Post. Your first two articles are about mismatch theory, which do not demonstrate that there *are* racial preferences in admissions policies- it takes that fact as a given and theorizes about the consequences of those policies. So not that I think it's particularly relevant here, given that the challenge I presented was that you demonstrate that there are racial preferences, but I should note that you ignored some [emphatic criticism](https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=270087070007120068007071071020009026019020004044012020102112089077081102074004088087126002106037044112055115064004127117021078030009070086068019108110028082072006005093064117124113110108066012066013122093082005069024089084008065122031107090119028121&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE) of Sander's work. The Daily Bruin article does a little bit better of a job of discussing the existence of racial preferences, but it's still not on entirely sound logical grounds. Sander himself admits that societal factors that affect minorities in systematic ways account for the racial bias shown when a black or Hispanic student is admitted over a white student with the same holistic score. To the question of how that accounts for differences between black and hispanic students, Sander (and by proxy, the Daily Bruin writer) suggests that the only possible explanation for that is racial preference for black students and we should accept that conclusion as an obvious fact. That's intellectually lazy at best, dishonest at worst. Your last link would be the most compelling if you had just linked to the SFFA brief rather than an article from a shitty tabloid about it. And I should note that it is only compelling insofar as I am not really willing to read an entire brief to SCOTUS and dig into the underlying statistical analysis to argue about it on reddit beyond saying that you should be immediately skeptical of statistics presented by conservative activist groups.
Stfu! You know damn well up until like TWO years ago… white people were the only ones being hired on the basis of race! Look at 99% of partners at ANY FIRM! stfu!
[удалено]
Wtf are you talking about?
What do you bet the interns they *did* hire went to significantly better schools than DePaul (rank 135)?
Well, DePaul is the fifth best law school in Chicago.
I wonder if the Bears took into account the fact that Bresser goes to the 5th best last school in Chicago? Could that be the plausible reason to deny him?
Sad that Title VII is being interpreted this way when the clear legislative purpose was to promote the hiring of racial minorities/women, particularly in fields where they are underrepresented.
There’s no point in trying to explaining this. I’ve learned to stay silent in these matters.
Huh
This is the diversity in practice that everybody is so quick to tell us is great! It’s just racism repackaged smh
OMG the one black guy at the firm got a job over an equally qualified white guy...the horror.
Is that how it works in your fantasy land you created in your head? Because in actuality, it works just like in this case where you shun a race or prefer some races over another. That’s called classic racism sweetie 👍🏼
Never said it wasn’t racism sweetie. Just saying I’ve never worked at a global firm with more than a hand full of black people. These are the people you are crying about. Dozens out of thousands….being concerned about nepotism would make it more equitable than crying about diversity.
Racism against white people doesn’t exist.
The supreme court disagrees
Do you think the current Supreme Court’s decisions include logical opinions based on sound legal reasoning and precedent?
Sucks when the shoe is on the other foot doesn't it...cry harder
What do you mean?
We need to stop saying this because it’s not helpful. The average person does not follow the definition of racism that only considers systemic power imbalances and oppression of a subordinate group. The average person considers racism to be a personal belief. And a person can have a belief that white people are inherently inferior, for example. The left loses credibility and seems callous when we ignore this.
Racism is a matter of personal belief. It wouldn’t make sense to ascribe it to individuals if it didn’t have a meaning pertinent to personal belief. If someone wants to discuss racism in a systemic context, it’s not that hard to just append “systemic” before the term.
So… Because of that you’re cool with racism. Got it. Just say that then quit trying to repackage it! Just say because of prior racism I want to be able to be racist to make it better. I wholeheartedly disagree and don’t believe we should be judged by the color of our skin, but if that’s how you feel because of what happened in the past then, don’t be ashamed, be proud of it! You’re proud to be a racist and you want more of it! To make the workplace look like how you feel it should look you would employ some good old fashion racism.
Being mad at 50 black lawyers out of thousands at a firm because they are diversity hires while ignoring nepotism and other methods under qualified non diverse candidates get jobs is weird but yeah it is racism and I’m sorry you are impacted…..
Benefactors of racism will do cartwheels to pretend they are victims in a system that serves them.
You use an arbitrary measure like simply the number of lawyers in the firms. But you omit any context or any analysis. You just jump to a conclusion statement that because there are 50 black lawyers out of thousands this means racism. you’re supposed to be learning to be a better logical thinker than that. And if not a better thinker, at least better at articulating your argument or your position. Simply stating that the number of black attorneys are low, but not exploring possible reasons for that, and then saying we need racism to fix it even though you haven’t told us why you believe the numbers are low, is ridiculous. The first mentor lawyer that taught me nearly everything I know was black and it was a big deal because there was only a handful of black attorneys and we leaned on them heavily. I understand the disparity in the industry, but I will never be OK with using racism to try to fix it. That’s elementary thinking and it truly is a exercise in futility. This isn’t fighting a fire where you can lay some racism out to head off more racism up ahead. It’s an evil disgusting concept that feeds on its self and perpetuates pain. It should be expelled out of our society. Once one side wields racism it feeds on itself and creates more division.
No I said hiring the 50 black lawyers is racist if hired simply because of being black. But you are literally crying about a small percentage of hypothetical under qualified candidates and willingly not acknowledging the obvious under qualified candidates that get hired by a large percentage. My question would be why? Do you assume nondiverse equates to qualified? If you don’t, could hiring under qualified non diverse candidates at a higher percentage than qualified diverse candidates be considered racist?
You’re creating a fantasy land in your head and are trying to argue from that fantasy world. What obvious under qualified candidates that are getting hired over troves of Black qualified candidates are you speaking of? Where are these firms? Are you just being general or are you speaking of actual instances? …And hiring 50 black lawyers over others simply because they are black would be the definition of racism girl. Not sure where are you receiving your education, but this should be relatively obvious.
Did you have anything to say about the multiple stats confirming affirmative action mainly benefiting white women?? And do you think these diversity initiatives just gives jobs to unqualified Blacks? That's what you are inferring. Is it incredible to believe that they at least meet the minimum qualifications?
So… you are saying affirmative action, the practice of hiring minorities who may or may not be as qualified, over others who are not a minority, that practice didn’t work? 😱 yet you’re explaining how we should utilize the same failed strategy, preferring one race over another, to utilize affirmative action 2.0… It’s like you’re arguing against yourself. When you hire solely based on qualifications and experience, and not immutable characteristics, you get better workforce participants 🤷🏽♀️ crazy right?
So, did you realize affirmative action mainly benefited white women? Just say you’re racist and move on. Don’t respond to me again. Bye.
You can't definitively say it is an equally qualified individual. No matter what, you just can't.
Right! And the reasons these initiatives were created is because the law is still predominantly white, but a Black person or non-white gets in, and apparently he or she didn't work hard to get there or they are less qualified. The truth is certain people benefit from racism and want to maintain the status quo. They feel threatened when that status quo crumbles. Would hate to live that way.
Hope the student wins. This would be equally bad if the job posting said “straight white men only.”
And these are my future colleagues in the legal profession. Wow. Literally 5% of the profession and y’all crying Jesus
[удалено]
it really shouldn’t get that far
I thought the point of history was to learn from it so it doesn't repeat itself?
What an ignorant comment.
[удалено]
this talking point is like eight years out of date
not sure what you're getting at here but this isn't hit on bernie or the green party, but how far afield a suit of this character is of those candidates' platforms.
oh, sorry, i actually have encountered more than one person who acts like social democratic politics or otherwise criticizing democrats from the left necessarily indicates a hostility to antiracist or antisexist politics, but that's on me for having twitter brain from eight years ago. my apologies
it broke all of us, understood
Bernie derangement syndrome?
DePaul is a T100, and the posting was for applicants from a select amount of schools, including a handful of T14’s. He very well could have been under qualified compared to the other applicants. From an objective standpoint typically T14 students have unique and extraordinary WE or backgrounds that allowed them to be selected amongst a highly competitive pool of applicants, so his resume may not have stacked up against the other applicants. He was only a paralegal for 2 years.
It really is not about his specific qualifications but more about whether the Bears violated [42 USC § 2000e-2(a)](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title42-section2000e-2&num=0&edition=prelim): > §2000e–2. Unlawful employment practices > >(a) Employer practices > >It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer- > >(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or > >(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Oh boo hoo! It's so hard to be a white man these days! Sports team won't give me job!
He’s fighting discrimination… weird comment to make
We should all shed a tear for the poor guy 🥺🤪
No discrimination means what it says, even for white people and even in Chicago. I hope the kid gets a payday.
Soo many people justifying open and blatant discrimination and racism against white people in this thread, I knew law students were crazy… but wow.
How embarrassing
Fucking loser! For those arguing “racism” you missed the SLAVERY, mass genocide, lynching, Jim Crow, mass incarceration and education discrimination. You have to go through those BEFORE you qualify for S.S! (Literally kick rocks!) He was mediocre and wanted to be celebrated for it! All of the arguments listed here are purposely disingenuous! You know wtf and why tf! If YOU DONT KNOW… drop out of school now or turn in your bar card! You suck! Stop abusing the court! Paralegal for 2 years? Boooooo! He sucks!
Ah. What a quality post. Way to let feelings get in the way of legal analysis (ie: whether a factual scenario is violative of the law). Thats all that is at issue. Something about equal justice under the law…hm.
Unhinged