Legal Racism?

Okay, that was a play on words, but it got ya to open the article, didn’t it? :-)

Okay, so what is the deal with this article?  Well first of all, let me start it off by saying that I’m really tired of seeing all of the issues involving racism and diversity come up.  I would like to write about something else for a change. :-)

This time, it’s about the American Bar Association focusing in on diversity in the legal profession and personally, I’m all for that.  I mean, one would assume that lawyers would come in all colors/ethnicities, right?  Basically, who cares what color your attorney is, as long as he/she knows what the heck they’re doing and is good at their job, right?

It seems that the ABA, in its mid-year meeting, is going to focus on “diversity and inclusion” and presenting three resolutions for dealing with this.

1) Companies need to “adopt plans, politics and practices to diversify their boards and to include board composition in public disclosure materials”.

In other words, “put minorities on your board, whether their as qualified as others who would be considered for the position or not and prove it by advertising it and if you don’t, then we can shame you”.

This is a quota system, plain and simple!  And there’s the obvious threat of shaming you, if you don’t comply with their demand!  Anyone who thinks that this won’t just open these companies up to the “diversity shamers” if they don’t have the “proper” number of minorities on their board, is simply not capable of reasoned thinking!

Again, I’m all for diversity.  But what I am not for, is awarding positions to people of whatever color, just because they’re not white!  I believe in a simple merit based system.  You do the work, you prove yourself better than the other guy of whatever color and you get the job, period.  Nothing else should be involved.  And of course if there are incidents of racism, then they should be dealt with legally by the person/people who were discriminated against.

This resolution is further complicated by its demand for inclusion of people with disabilities.  Now while I’m sure there are some brilliant attorneys out there that have a disability, what are the odds that every company will be able to have an attorney on their board that is disabled and who outshined every other candidate, for inclusion?  The truth is, as I said, this is just a quota system and companies are going to pay for it, by having less qualified, less brilliant attorneys on their boards, to meet the proposal, to avoid being shamed by the ABA and the public alike.  Because as we all know, the public, especially liberals, are simply not bright enough to get beyond the shouting over diversity and their demand for it, without ever considering anything beyond accusing everyone of racism and thats just a plain, cold hard fact!

And of course, we haven’t even addressed the LGBTQ attorneys that will need to be included.  Remember when you simply couldn’t discriminate against someone because of their sex?  Well, now they will be forced to discriminate against people, because of their sex lives! Meaning, if yours is a normal, heterosexual sex life, then we’re so sorry, but we can’t include you on our board!

The bottom line here, is that if you considered all candidates fairly, but couldn’t find the right number of appropriate candidates in each category, then you’ll just have to be publicly shamed for “not being diverse”!

And has anyone considered the effect that this will have on those left out?  What I mean is, what if you’re white and more qualified, but you don’t get the job, because they have to fill a quota?  And what if you’re black, but you don’t get the job, because they already have two blacks and now they need a transgender?  Hello???

Yes folks, forced diversity!  Isn’t it grand?!

And of course, the resolution brings up equal pay for women, as in they should get paid the same, ignoring the fact that many women leave the workforce in the prime of their career, or before they have the experience to demand such pay, to care for their families, or they may choose to work fewer hours, etc..  Don’t get me wrong, I’m not criticizing them for that.  Rather, I applaud women who put their children’s need to have the buturer of the couple there with them!  I respect  that decision a great deal!  I’m just saying that it is ridiculous to claim that these same women should augomatically make the same pay as the men who do not do this, since men must provide for their families financially and so, stay at their jobs.

2) The next resolution “encourages bar admissions authorities to consider the effects on minorities of adopting the Uniform Bar Exam and to include information not included on the UBE, particularly Indian law in areas with large Native American populations”.

This resolution cites the Supreme Court as questioning the Law School Admission Test because “it is not race neutral and produces racially disparate impacts”.

The resolution does note that while minority law students pass the bar at a lower rate, “the vast majority of all students who take the bar exam do eventually pass”.

In other words, what it will end up doing, is making the whole exam system look racist, when in fact, the admissions test is based on what students need to know to be admitted into law school, plain and simple.  And if blacks are not passing the exam at the same rate as whites, they want the system to be rigged to admt more blacks into law school.  Tell me, how is that supposed to be done?  I mean, how is an admissions test not “race neutral”?  How is an admissions test “racist”?  Do they ask “white” questions?  Huh?!

Here is the truth.  Typically in this country, blacks in general are not as well educated.  Now why this is, we can discuss ’til the cows come home.  But whatever the reason is, that is where the problem is and not with a “racist admissions test”.  An admissions test is not automatically racist, just because less blacks pass it than whites.

First of all, less blacks take it than whites.  Second of all, if less blacks are well educated, then they will pass at a lower rate.  But neither of these things makes the admissions test itself racist.  Therefore, how do you make an admissions test “not racist”?  Do you ask questions about Hip Hop music on it, just to try to level the playing field?  I mean, think about it.  It’s a ridiculous accusation!

Here’s an idea…  Fix the problem in the education system that blacks go through before that point!  It is a fact that the most urban areas have a high number of black people living in them.  It is also a fact that the schools there do not rceive the same amount of money as the schools in outside of those areas for educational materials.  Now I personally don’t think it’s because of racism.  I think it’s because the Dept of Education spends more money on the schools that are in the areas where the citizens are paying more tax dollars.  After all, you cannot tell the people that you collect the lions share of the tax money from, that they’re going to be the ones shorted on materials.  Fair?  Not fair?  You decide.  I’m just saying that I do not believe that anyone is sitting there, saying; “Let’s not buy books for that school, because they’re black!”.  I think it’s what it always comes down to; money!  In this case, who’s paying the tax dollars in and thus, where most of it it will be spent.

Personally, I think it should be equally divided out and then when everyone’s shorted, more people will decide that’s not good enough and there will be a bigger, multi-color voice being heard and it will be too hard to just brush off!

3) The final resolution “asks attornet licensing agencies with minimum continuing legal education requirements to include programs on diversity, inclusion and the elimination of bias”.

The thing here is, that you don’t need to spend money to tell people not to be racist.  They already know that they’re not supposed to be.  And trying to force a certain makeup by percentages is not a solution!  It’s simply going to lower the bar of quality, because you end up having to take someone who may not be as well qualified, simply and only because they’re transgender, or disabled, or whatever.  And it ends up discriminatin against those lawyers, whether white, black, or whatever, who were better qualified, but did not get the position, because they had to hire some guy who insists he’s not a he and wants to be called “Shirley” and demands that you not attach stereotyped “gender names” like “he”, or “she” to him, instead preferring to be known as “zie”, or “zer”, or whatever.  And yes, those are actually new “genders” now!  In fact, Facebook has 71 of them to choose from when you create your profile now!  All in the name of the Social Justice Warriors attempt to eliminate the two God created genders; “male” and “female”!

Leave a Reply