Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Racist Demands Of The American Bar Association

At the University of Virginia, a student with a LSAT score of 160 and an undergraduate GPA of 3.25 had a 96% chance of admission if he or she was black, but only a 3% chance of admission if white. At William & Mary, a black with a LSAT score of 155 and an undergraduate GPA of 3.0 had a 92% chance of being admitted while a white with the same credentials had a 3% chance of admission. At George Mason University, not having racist policies, the chances for admission were roughly the same. Blacks with a LSAT of 155 and an undergraduate GPA of 3.0 had a 53% chance of admission while similar whites had a 50% chance.

The bullying practices of the American Bar Association (ABA) are truly a wicked, disgusting perversion. George Mason University Law School, which does not practice racially discriminatory admissions policy, is brought on the carpet by the ABA while University of Virginia and William & Mary, which have racially discriminatory admissions policies, have little problem. The sad fact of the matter is the ABA holds enormous life and death power over law schools and they must cave in to [the racist] ABA demands or else.

~George Mason economist Walter Williams

8 Comments:

At 9/10/2008 9:17 AM, Anonymous bgr said...

Long time reader, first time commenter. Excellent article. It exposes what is a sincere and sad disappointment. It's as if America's schools are in a race to achieve mediocrity. I dream of a day where students will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their academic qualifications.

Are people not entitled to the best possible legal representation? It's as if society's needs are being sacrificed to help... society. Ridiculous- and this policy only more obfuscates the real problems that cause any disparity of capability among races.

My children will be of mixed race -- I hope that they don't become aware of this disincentive toward their own achievement. I also hope that the people they meet don't wonder if their achievements were due only to the "merit" of their race.

[end soapbox]

 
At 9/10/2008 11:01 AM, Blogger Walt G. said...

Is the ABA really the bad guy here? Employers are forced by federal law, Title VII, not to discriminate against hiring on the basis of race, gender . . . . If the only way to be a lawyer is to graduate law school (it is), then, how would a personnel department of a large law firm be able to hire and comply with the law without black law school graduates? Maybe Uncle Sam should take the blame here.

Unions and employers face the same problem when they attempt to select apprentices. Ford lost an EEOC suit for $8.5 million in 2005 for disparate impact discrimination against blacks in their apprentice selection procedures. This selection procedure was designed by a very reputable contractor, but Ford still had to pay the price.

No, I don’t have any answers to this problem, but the source or cause of problems is not always what it appears to be at first glance.

 
At 9/10/2008 12:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So let me get this right. Carpe Diem links to a Walter Williams (adjunct professor at GMU; Carpe Diem being a graduate of GMU) article posted at TownHall.com and what pops up on the left sidebar.

A white caucasian female wearing a Reagan/Bush41 tee.

Wow, it's not a black male with a 150 LSAT & a 2.9 GPA.

Whatever cranks your fantasy, Carpe Diem. :-)

 
At 9/10/2008 12:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Walt G. - I hear your point but am confused.

As you state, the law mandates that employers can not discriminate in their hiring practices based on race. It doesn't say that employers must discriminate in favor of a minority (reverse discrimination has not been mandated...yet)

So the answer is, if there are no/not enough black lawyers at the time the law firm needs to hire someone, so be it.

It sounds like you are insinuating there are unwritten quotas which might be a whole different story.

May the best man or woman get and keep the job and may the government stay the hell out of our lives. Unfortunately, the reality in this country is increasingly the opposite.

 
At 9/10/2008 2:04 PM, Blogger randian said...

Yes, the ABA is at fault. Remember they have certifying authority over law schools. Without certification your law school's JD is worthless, since most states require an ABA-certified JD if you want a license to practice law, even if you pass the bar exam. The ABA will not grant certification unless the law school in question kowtows to its affirmative action demands.

 
At 9/10/2008 11:26 PM, Blogger Dave Narby said...

Yay! Just what we need.

More lawyers.

Maybe we can start a new industry of exporting litigation!

 
At 9/11/2008 8:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The ABA is a democratic organization, is it not? It has a democratic structure that votes on policy, right? As I understand, the vote on Affirmative Action was unanimous amongst the delegates, therefore its democracy in action, no? There probably also is a sense of history here, as the ABA historically was a racist organization, prompting the formation of the National Bar Association.

So if you don't agree, why not go become a delegate and change the policy?

 
At 9/12/2008 8:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re: "So if you don't agree, why not go become a delegate and change the policy?"

Why not strip the ABA of its role in accreditation instead. Why should bowing down before the ABA's political agenda be a requirement for schools?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home