Tagged: societal discrimination

“The impact of early admission programs on access to higher education took on yet greater importance in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2003 decisions in Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger. The cases brought to a close years of litigation challenging the University of Michigan’s undergraduate-and law-school-admissions processes. In clear, cogent language, the Court announced that educational diversity is a compelling interest that justifies the consideration of race in higher education admissions practices. Dozens of institutions of higher education filed or joined amicus briefs in support of the University of Michigan, arguing that a diverse student body is essential to fulfill their educational missions. Yet many of those same institutions continue to employ early admission programs after Grutter and Gratz, even as growing evidence suggests that the programs limit student-body diversity. One of the questions this Note seeks to answer is why, if schools place such a high premium on diversity, early admission programs have become so prevalent over the past decade.”

Source: Ruby Z. Afram. Civil Rights, Antitrust, and Early Decision Programs, The Yale Law Journal; Jan 2006; 115, 4 pg. 883.

read Zbigniew Brzezinski’s (aide to Obama) March 17, 1978 Memorandum re: “Black Africa and the U.S. Black Movement.”

ZbigniewBrzezinskiandregan

Click here to read his racist report so you can understand why the black community has struggled to produce another leader of the caliber of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. or Malcolm X, since making many civil rights gains during the 1960s and 1970s: http://www.finalcall.com/memorandum-46.htm.

I used this picture because Brezezinski wrote the memorandum while serving as the US National Security Advisor to Democratic President Jimmy Carter and two years later,  he (man on the far left) would go on to work under Republican President Ronald Reagan — a former Hollywood actor who as President, would help the Republican party usher in a more conservative form of politics that was  (and still is) anti-black and extremely hostile to civil rights. Clearly, he has power and I’m sure Brezezinski’s strategies were extremely influential in helping Reagan (as well as other Presidents) and the U.S. government achieve that racist shift that still dominates America’s conscience today.

Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington

While doing more research on Brzezinski, I saw a recent article which reported that he has condemned Israel’s actions in Gaza and that his “strong criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the massacre of Palestinians in Gaza indicates a ‘fundamental change in policy’ by the US government and is a ‘clear message’ to Israel.” Kinda shocking that he would lend his support to the Palestinians given his stance on Black Africa and African Americans in the U.S…

For more information, click here: http://www.albawaba.com/news/advisor-obama-administration-condemns-israels-actions-592985.

is it in the public interest of a multicultural society such as the United States of America, to eradicate INSTITUTIONALIZED RACISM?

The American Lawyer Writer Vivia Chen Asks: Is It [FINALLY] Time to Call [The Diversity Crisis in the Legal Profession] Racism?

Pity more racists aren’t like Donald Sterling, the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers (and a lawyer). If all bigots were as flagrant as Sterling, it’d be so much easier to identify racism and nip it in the bud. Much more slippery are the more polite forms of bias, such as those that persist in the polished halls of Big Law.

In my 10-plus years covering women and diversity in the profession, I’ve heard many reasons why elite law firms have poor track records with black lawyers. (They make up only 2 percent of Am Law 100 partners; for Wall Street firms, it’s 1.6 percent.) Among them: the leaky pipeline, the dearth of role models and mentors, poor training, etc.

But who wants to tackle what’s at the heart of it all: race? Certainly not partners. They’d prefer to spotlight their relative success with Hispanics or Asian-Americans. In fact, some firms that get high marks for overall diversity have paltry records when it comes to black partners. (Among Am Law 100 firms, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy rank high for diversity, though each has just one black partner; Davis Polk & Wardwell, another high scorer, has none.)

Whenever I press firms about the lack of black lawyers, the explanation invariably comes down to the limited inventory and this: “We can’t compromise on our standards.”

The first time I heard the “standards” explanation, I took it at face value. After all, big firms are credential-obsessed institutions, and there are only so many top candidates to go around—and fewer diverse ones at that. But I’ve heard the “standards” line so often that I wonder if it’s code for something else.

Black lawyers have made scant progress compared with blacks in financial management, medicine and accounting, according to a study by the Microsoft Corporation. What makes the legal field so impenetrable, I think, is that lawyers, particularly those in major firms, believe that they are intellectually superior. Firms promote this cult of cerebralism, preaching that only the brightest and most tenacious will win the prize. To some members of the establishment, minorities don’t quite fit the bill.

And so this myth of meritocracy creates a closed, self-satisfied, slow-evolving club that tends to admit members who are carbon copies of those already there.

Which brings us back to the “standards” explanation. Partners often tell me that they have to lower their standards to hire black associates, yet when they do, those hires often don’t work out. (Left unanswered: How much exactly are firms “lowering” their standards? Do law school grades truly determine success in the long run. And why can’t “standards” be taught?)

I don’t doubt that some big firms are making a good-faith effort to increase the number of black attorneys in their ranks. But firms often seem ambivalent about the effort: They congratulate themselves for going the extra mile to recruit African-Americans while waiting for them to implode.

A recent study by consulting firm Nextions confirms my observations. In it, 60 partners from 22 firms were asked to rate a research memo by a third-year associate. Some were told the memo was authored by a Caucasian; others were told an African-American wrote it. The Caucasian got a 4.1 out of a high grade of 5, while the African American got a 3.2.

“This confirms empirically what we know anecdotally,” says Merle Vaughn, a managing partner and the head of diversity at recruiting firm Major Lindsey & Africa. “Implicit bias exists—which some would argue is explicit as well.”

Call it implicit, unconscious or unintentional bias, but it’s prejudice just the same, an uncomfortable fact that firms need to face. Firms can go through the motions of diversity—host cocktail parties for black law students, assign mentors to black associates or hire fancy diversity experts—but unless they’re convinced that African-Americans can make it, those efforts are largely a waste of time.

Of course racism is playing a “motivating factor” in why African Americans are grossly underrepresented at elite law firms throughout America. Firms like Loeb & Loeb LLP are essentially in business to help companies, like William Morris, maintain their discriminatory employment practices, policies and procedures. Not surprising that this firm also has a gross underrepresentation of African American partners and associates or that their highly experienced attorneys demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the law when it comes to this nation’s civil and human rights laws….

Source: http://www.americanlawyer.com/id=1202656369463/The-Diversity-Crisis%3A-Time-to-Call-It-Racism%3F#ixzz3450yLEsq

“Professors Kevin Clermont and Stewart Schwab have studied the rates of success for plaintiffs in federal employment litigation at the trial and appellate levels, and compared them with similar statistics for other types of federal litigation. In their most recent study, they found that for the years 1998-2006, the win rate for Title VII plaintiffs in federal district court was 10.88%, as compared with 9.12% for ADA plaintiffs, 11.67% for ADEA plaintiffs, and 10.96% for Section 1981 race discrimination plaintiffs. Over the period from 1979-2006, plaintiffs in all types of federal employment cases won only about 15% of the time, while plaintiffs in other types of federal litigation won approximately 51% of the time. For cases actually reaching trial, the win rates were approximately 28% for employment plaintiffs, compared to 45% for other federal plaintiffs.”

Source: Jason R. Bent. The Telltale Sign of Discrimination: Probabilities, Information Asymmetries and the Systemic Disparate Treatment Theory, 44 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 797, 834-835. Summary 2011.

watch awesome TED Talks speech with one of two black female Chairwomen in corporate America, Mellody Hobson: “I think it’s time for us to be comfortable, with the uncomfortable conversation about race.”

“This refusal to accept the stark reality that race matters is regrettable. As members of the judiciary tasked with intervening to carry out the guarantee of equal protection, we ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society.” — Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor, April 22, 2014

Comment from Sonya Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday, to uphold “Michigan’s ban on affirmative action.”

The entire opinion can be read here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-682_j4ek.pdf.

Rarely does one read comments like this from ANY of the majority, white males who sit on the highest Court of the land. Although they like to pretend that racism no longer exists, in a society that is and has always been extremely race conscious, RACE MATTERS!

“Summary judgment abuse and overuse occurs in all types of cases, but is especially magnified in employment discrimination cases. This problem is exacerbated by the daily ritual of appellate courts affirming summary judgment grants to employers, often without comment, at a rate that far exceeds any other substantive area of federal law.”

One defense attorney on yesterday’s panel at NYU said that 95 percent of his employment discrimination cases were won on summary judgment. The agreed upon range from others on the panel was around 70-80 percent. How can this be so if the Civil Rights Act was amended in 1991 to allow for jury trials in these specific types of cases? Given that whites, at the macro level, do not experience discrimination because of their race in this country and white male federal judges are over-represented throughout our judicial system, what role does this play in explaining why a large number of employment discrimination cases never make it to a jury? They would like you to believe the reason is because many of these cases are “frivolous” and “non-meritorious,” but Leonard Rowe’s case, as well as mine, demonstrate otherwise. Shouldn’t an impartial jury ultimately decide the merits of these cases since there is clearly a disconnect between the lived realities of whites — especially those who sit on the bench — and those who have been historically oppressed?

Source: Hon. Mark W. Bennett. From the “No Spittin’, No Cussin’ and No Summary Judgment” Days of Employment Discrimination Litigation to the “Defendant’s Summary Judgment Affirmed Without Comment” Days: One Judge’s Four Decade Experience. 57 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev.685, 686 (2012–2013).

“United States government figures which revealed that 26 percent of male Negro youths were unemployed during July of 1964. The jobless rate among Negro male youth for all of 1963 was 25.4 per cent, nearly twice as high as the figure among their white counterparts.” “The unemployment rate for black youth reached a high of 49.1 percent in November 2009 and as of January 2012 had fallen to 38.5 percent.”

50 years later, the unemployment rate disparities between blacks and whites in America is still the same — at least based on the numbers provided to us by the government. This means, things are actually worse than what’s reported. What’s conveniently omitted from the conversation on employment is that we are typically over-represented in lower skilled, lower waged positions in this country.

Sources: Herbert Hill. Racial Inequality in Employment: The Patterns of Discrimination. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 357:30, 32 (1965); http://www.dol.gov/_sec/media/reports/blacklaborforce/.

a very powerful poem re: lack of diversity at UCLA by Sy Stokes.

Although much of the conversation over the last few decades has revolved around affirmative action, it’s quotas that majority of whites are adamantly against. That conversation has been “off the table” for quite some time and the majority conservative, predominately all-White judiciary has determined that admission departments shouldn’t be “race conscious” when accepting students. One of the articles pertaining to UCLA’s lack of diversity said that since this ruling was made, enrollment for African Americans (and possibly other minorities) has decreased!  This is just one of many examples demonstrating that many of the gains made by the civil rights movement and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are being eviscerated. As result, we are slowly becoming nonexistent…invisible….extinct — from the classroom to the workplace. We need to demand these predominately all-White universities and institutions throughout higher education and other industries in America (like our judicial system) to implement a quota system to correct these racial imbalances caused by racism a.k.a. global white supremacy. It seems to be working in Brazil and France, so why not implement it here?