(3) News Articles July 2006:
Prof. Sander's Newest Research:
"The Racial Paradox of the Corporate Law Firm"

Web Posted July 10, 2006

Index
Down: Index
          "If there was a product on the market that caused blacks, or any other group, to end up at the bottom of the class, flunk out in large numbers, and suffer in the job market there would be an uproar for the Federal Trade Commission to pull the product immediately, coupled with calls for congressional investigations.  SANDER:
SANDER: Main Index
MAIN INDEX
          "Lawsuits would abound.   Not so with racial preferences.  Maybe it's just easier to scam black students than fix the structural problems causing poor performance." -- Peter Kirsanow, U.S. Civil Rights Commissioner, writing in the National Review on June 27, 2006. Download
Download "Racial Paradox"
Sander's
Complete
Study

News Articles:

Law firms and the downside of 'aggressive racial preferences' -- U.S. News 06-20-06

By John Leo

          "Here is a devastating statistic on racial preferences: Blacks account for only 1 or 2 percent of law students with high grades, yet they make up 8 percent of lawyers hired by large law firms.

          "Why are blacks hired by the large firms at four to eight times the rate that their marks seem to warrant?   Because the understandable pressures to hire more black lawyers result in offers to many blacks who understandably cannot keep pace with the faster-track competition. Young black lawyers leave big firms at two to three times the rate of whites.  Those who stay are often consigned to grunt work that their bosses think they can handle.

          "Richard Sander, a UCLA law professor, wrote a piece in 2004 in the Stanford Law Review showing how racial preferences backfire against black students.  Now, according to Stuart Taylor Jr., the excellent legal columnist at National Journal, Sanders has written another strong article on the subject to be published soon in the North Carolina Law Review.  Taylor writes: "Many capable African-Americans experience frustration and failure because racial preferences thrust them into elite settings where they compete with whites with far better qualifications."

          "Sander's forthcoming piece will be titled 'The Racial Paradox of the Corporate Law Firm.'  The paradox is that 'aggressive racial preferences' at the law-school and law-firm level tend to undermine the careers of blacks and thus cause the failure of the whole preferential system.  The core of the problem is the small number of blacks who emerge from high school with strong academic skills.

          "Taylor writes that [based upon Sander's research] at least 46 percent of black lawyers at large firms had law-school grade-point averages below 3.25, compared with 14 percent of whites.   At law schools, preferences ensure that black students are clustered near the bottom of their classes, with only 8 percent ranking in the top half.

          "Sander and Taylor acknowledge that bias may play some role at large law firms but cannot account for the high rate of failure.  Taylor writes: 'Why would the same firms that use aggressive racial preferences to bring in minorities then turn around and discriminate against them?'   Taylor reports that 56 percent of black lawyers at large firms admitted thinking that their race or ethnicity had been relatively important in winning them job offers. This is significant because testimony at a hearing in Washington yesterday seemed to point generally in the opposite direction.  David Bernstein, law professor and outstanding legal blogger at Volokh Conspiracy, reports that he and Sander expressed concerns that many 'diversity' candidates at law schools 'have no idea regarding the extent of the preferences they receive or how they might affect their chances of successfully completing law school and passing the bar exam.'

          "The Civil Rights Commission is conducting hearings on a proposed and wayward American Bar Association policy that would in effect require law schools to use racial preferences in admission or risk the loss of their accreditation.  Another pressure for more preferences leading to more weak admissions and more failure.

-- Excerpted from the John Leo article
in U.S. News June 20, 2006.  Last known link:

U.S. News 6-20-06


Affirmative Damage -- National Review 06-27-06

Students sacrificed in the name of 'diversity'

By Peter Kirsanow

          "What if proponents of affirmative action are wrong? That is, what if racial-preference policies don't increase the numbers of minorities who graduate from colleges, law schools, etc, but rather, do just the opposite?  Moreover, what if the harm done to minority academic and employment prospects is compounded by the fact that the policies are blatantly unlawful?

          "What if affirmative action is a giant, devastating sham?

          "Startling testimony at a recent U.S. Commission on Civil Rights hearing from Dr. Richard Sander, Professor of Law at UCLA, showed that racial preferences at American law schools are just such a sham.   Professor Sander's two most recent analyses reveal extraordinary disparities between black law students and their white comparatives: The grade-point averages of approximately 50 percent of black law students cluster in the bottom ten percent of the class.  Blacks are two and a half times more likely than whites not to graduate. Blacks are four times more likely to fail the bar exam on the first try and six times more likely never to pass the exam despite multiple attempts.

          "Perhaps the most astonishing statistic is that only about a third of blacks entering law school this fall will graduate and pass the bar exam on the first try.  Bleak are the prospects for many black law students.

          "Professor Sander testified that the primary cause for the black law-school disaster is racial preferences.  His systemic analyses describe in unapologetic detail how affirmative action creates a mismatch effect, i.e., black students enroll at schools at which they're ill-equipped to compete.

          "Consider the progression resulting in the above failure rates. As my colleague Abigail Thernstrom has noted, The National Assessment of Educational Progress, "the nation's report card", shows that only 25% of black 17 year olds read as well as the average white 17 year old. Nearly 90% of black 17 year olds score below the average white 17 year old in math. More than 90% of black 17 year olds score below the average white 17 year old in science. In the end, the average black high school graduate has the academic proficiency of the average white 8th grader.

          "Accordingly, the number of black high-school graduates ready to compete at the college level is small. The number who performed well enough to compete at elite colleges is smaller still.

          "Colleges must draw from this small, yet underperforming (relative to whites) group in order to satisfy their "diversity" programs. Admissions offices couldn't begin to fill their diversity requirements if black applicants were evaluated in the same manner as whites. A regression analysis conducted by Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai on behalf of the Center for Equal Opportunity shows that at some schools black applicants are more than 100 times more likely to be admitted than whites with the same GPAs and SATs.

          "Blacks flunk out of college at a much higher rate than whites. The black students who do graduate still lag far behind white students in academic competency — the gap that prevailed upon matriculation largely persists through graduation.

          "It's from this small, underperforming pool that law schools in search of diversity must populate their classrooms with "meaningful numbers" of black students. The problem is that there aren't enough competitive black applicants to go around. As University of Texas law professor Lino Graglia pointed out a few years ago, the median GPA and LSAT percentile for admittees to the country's elite law schools were 3.8 and 98 respectively. At the time fewer than 20 black law students in the entire country met those standards. One elite law school, University of Michigan, has about 30 black law students in each entering class. Michigan alone could snap up all of the black students at the median and still have ten seats left to fill. This means that in order to achieve "diversity," Michigan and the other first-tier law schools must dig well below the median to fill the remaining seats.

          "This creates what Professor Sander calls the "cascade effect." Using preferences, the top schools vacuum up all of the black applicants at the median, as well as those one or two strata below — leaving no black applicants who meet the unalloyed standards of the second-tier law schools. These schools must, in turn, employ powerful preferences to fill diversity seats with black applicants from the next level (or two) below, and so on. The result is that at most law schools black students are not nearly as competitive as their white classmates. Abysmal graduation and bar passage rates follow. And the pattern replicates itself in the job market.

          "The landmark Supreme Court case, Grutter v. Bollinger sanctions the use of race in admissions provided the preference is but a flexible "plus" factor — a feather on the scale — that's considered along with a host of other factors. But Professor Sander's research shows that the preferences employed by law schools generally don't comply with the Grutter standard. He maintains that on a 1,000-point scale the median gap between white and black law school applicants is 135 points. The preferences are overwhelming and, contra Grutter, applied mechanically.

          "One of Professor Sander's most interesting findings is that there's no credible evidence that blacks would underperform whites if schools used race-blind admissions policies. Blacks would then enroll at schools that are a more appropriate competitive match, thereby increasing the probability of graduation. He stresses that this isn't about race. Rather, other variables are at play.

          "If there was a product on the market that caused blacks, or any other group, to end up at the bottom of the class, flunk out in large numbers, and suffer in the job market there would be an uproar for the Federal Trade Commission to pull the product immediately, coupled with calls for congressional investigations.  Lawsuits would abound.  Not so with racial preferences.  Maybe it's just easier to scam black students than fix the structural problems causing poor performance."

[Peter Kirsanow is a member of the National Labor Relations Board. He is also a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. These comments do not necessarily reflect the positions of either organization.]

-- Excerpted from the Peter Kirsanow article
in National Review June 27, 2006.  Last known link:

National Review 06-27-06


Students sacrificed in the name of 'diversity' -- National Journal 06-19-06

By Stuart Taylor Jr.

          "Most -- if not all -- of the nation's leading law firms seek to become more diverse by using 'very large hiring preferences' for African-Americans and smaller preferences for Hispanics.  So most of their newly hired minority lawyers have relatively weak academic records that would have brought rejection had they been white.

          "But these preferences are at best a mixed blessing -- and are often a curse -- for their recipients.  After a year or two on the job, most minority associates at big firms get less desirable assignments and less training than their white counterparts.  Many become discouraged and embittered. Young black lawyers leave big firms 'at two or three times the rate of whites.'

          "These problems plague minority lawyers precisely because of the racial preferences that got most of them hired.   By lowering the big firms' usual hiring standards, large preferences bring 'disparities in expectations and performance that ultimately hurt the intended beneficiaries.'

          "These are among the conclusions <<Download the study in PDF format>> copiously documented by Richard Sander, a UCLA law professor, in a 66-page article soon to be published in the North Carolina Law Review.   It is laden with meticulous statistical analyses of six publicly available data sets, including surveys of thousands of law students and lawyers at various stages in their lives and careers.

          "Sander's blockbuster article, 'The Racial Paradox of the Corporate Law Firm,' rejects the conventional wisdom that racism explains why most young black lawyers in large firms do not fare well, and why barely 1 percent of big-firm partners -- compared with 8 percent of new hires -- are black.

          "The paradox, Sander says, is that 'aggressive racial preferences at the law-school and law-firm level tend to undermine in some ways the careers of young attorneys and ... contribute to ... the failure of the underlying goal of this whole process -- the integration of elite firms at the partnership level.'

          "Sander's analysis is a natural sequel to his stunning 115-page Stanford Law Review article <<Download Systemic Analysis in PDF format>> in 2004 showing how the enormous racial preferences used by all selective law schools backfire against black students.

          "By producing huge black-white gaps in entering academic credentials, these preferences ensure that black students are clustered near the bottom of their classes, with only 8 percent ranking in the top half.   This in turn explains why more than 43 percent of entering black law students never become lawyers.  (See my Dec. 6, 2004, column, 'Do Racial Preferences Reduce the Number of Black Lawyers?' <<National Journal Link>>

          "Many a professor has attacked Sander's controversial 2004 analysis, but none has convincingly refuted it.  And although the North Carolina Law Review twins Sander's latest article with a skillfully argued, 17-page, pro-preference rebuttal by Duke law professors James Coleman and Mitu Galati, its ultimate unpersuasiveness reinforces my confidence in Sander's analysis.

          "Common sense tells those of us whose eyes are open that the pattern documented by Sander in the limited contexts of law schools and large firms also exists in college and other walks of life (although the scholarly Sander makes no such claim).

          "Many capable African-Americans experience frustration and failure because racial preferences thrust them into elite settings where they compete against whites with far better qualifications.   The root of the problem, of course, is that stunningly small percentages of blacks emerge from high school with strong academic skills.

  • "Preferential hiring of minorities with low grades. Large law firms feel enormous pressure -- from corporate clients, the media and others -- to become more diverse. So for decades they have aggressively recruited black and Hispanic law students. Since very few have grades that meet the firms' usual standards, the firms hire many minorities with grades "far below those of the white students hired at the same firms."

          "Even though blacks make up only 1 or 2 percent of law students with high grades, they make up 8 percent of large law firm hires. One survey shows that at least 46 percent of black lawyers at large firms (compared with 14 percent of whites) had law school GPAs below 3.25. Fifty-six percent of these black lawyers admitted thinking that their race or ethnicity had been relatively important in winning them job offers.

  • "How grades predict law firm success.  It is 'quite likely that the grade gap between whites and blacks in law school is duplicated in performance once inside the firm,' Sander asserts. In this, he challenges the popular myth that -- in law and other vocations -- grades do not predict future job performance.

          "Sander shows that large law firms pay very high salaries to attract the people with the highest law school grades. And available data bear out the firms' belief that these grades measure important skills.

          "To be sure, many outstanding lawyers did not have high grades. And many failures did. And skills such as jury appeal have little to do with grades. But very few big-firm lawyers appear before juries. And on average, Sander shows, law school grades measure "skills or qualities that continue to be relevant to effective performance throughout a legal career."

          "Surveys of University of Michigan Law School alumni, for example, find that those "with higher GPAs are more likely to survive the large-firm competition for partnerships" and earn more money.

  • "Racial disparities in training and assignments.  Numerous surveys of young black lawyers in large firms show that 'within a couple of years of starting associate jobs, many blacks and Hispanics have been largely relegated to routine, unchallenging work and deprived of most benefits of training, mentorship, and partner contact,' Sander reports. Most minority lawyers do more 'grunt work' than whites, have less contact with partners, report 'frustration and a sense of failure,' and leave within the first few years.

          "Why? Surveys belie the views of some analysts that minority law students are less interested in corporate law firms than whites, Sander reports. Rather, the most plausible explanation is that although firms make collective decisions to use hiring preferences, the individual partners who dole out plum assignments have "an overwhelming incentive" to choose those perceived to be most able and "to shun those whom the attorney thinks for any reason may not be up to the job."

  • "It's not about racism.   Surveys show that a significant minority of young black and Hispanic lawyers in large firms perceive themselves to be victims of old-fashioned racial hostility on the job, Sander explains.  But does this reflect reality?

          "It's worth noting that 20 percent of entering black law students in one large survey thought they had been victims of discrimination in the admissions process -- and that this was quite obviously the opposite of the truth.

          "Why would the same firms that use aggressive racial preferences to bring in minorities then turn around and discriminate against them?  And why, if the firms are racist, are there virtually no complaints of discrimination in pay, hours of work or overt treatment?

          "It's also telling that young blacks at firms with fewer than 50 lawyers -- firms that do not use large racial preferences, the data show -- report far, far fewer problems. There is no reason to suppose that these firms are more enlightened. The most plausible explanation, Sander shows, is that they hire minority lawyers who are well qualified for their jobs and whose work shows it.

          "To be sure, some big-firm partners may well be twisted by racial animus, Sander says. But probably not very many. And it would not be hard for minority associates to find out who those partners are and avoid them.

          "On the other hand, Sander admits, it is "extraordinarily difficult" to sort out how much of the unhappy experience of black associates at large firms is due to individual skill deficiencies and how much is due to what scholars call "stereotype discrimination."

          "Some individual black associates "are entirely able to perform as well or better than white associates," Sander says. But even these associates may get inferior training and assignments if -- as seems likely -- the "merit gap [is] reinforced and unfairly extended through stereotyping generalizations" about racial groups. (Sander himself, by the way, has a half-black son and is no conservative.)

          "Such racial stereotyping is deplorable. But the main reason for its persistence is not white racism. It is the conspicuous use of large racial preferences. They advertise the assumption that minority lawyers (and others) cannot compete on their own merits, and they thrust them into high-level competitions that most are doomed to lose.

          "This tragedy will continue until we do a far better job of educating minority children. In the meantime, unless our large law firms, law schools and other elite institutions moderate their racial double standards, they will continue to hurt many of the people they claim to be helping."

-- Excerpted from the National Journal
Article by Stuart Taylor
Last known link:
National Journal 06-19-06


Law Schools and Diversity Standards -- Chronicle of Higher Education 06-19-06

By Elia Powers

          "The United States Commission on Civil Rights took up affirmative action at law schools during a five-hour session Friday [June 16, 2006] highlighted by political posturing, jousting over statistics and moments of incivility.

          "A George Mason University law professor - joined by a number of the commission's own members - aired concerns that the American Bar Association, which oversees the accreditation of law schools, is pressuring institutions to practice unlawful racial preferences in admissions. Two other professors invited to address the group engaged in a broader debate about the costs and benefits of affirmative action at law schools.

          "David Bernstein, the George Mason law professor, said the bar association 'wants law schools to violate the law' by mandating that institutions use racial preferences in their admissions policies or face accrediting penalties.  Steven R. Smith, chair of the Council of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, vehemently denied the allegations and defended his association's written standards by saying they don't require schools to use quotas or even use race or ethnicity in their admissions decisions.

          "The ABA recently revised its diversity standards and will go before its House of Delegates in August for approval.   Smith, whose association was scheduled to appear last month before the Education Department's National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, told the civil rights commission that he was looking for feedback on the updated standards.

          "The passage under scrutiny comes from the ABA council's longstanding Standard 211, which, in the updated version, would be titled 'Equal Opportunity and Diversity,' rather than 'Equal Opportunity Effort.'  The text [of the ABA standard] reads:

'a law school shall demonstrate, by concrete action, a commitment to providing full opportunities for the study of law and entry into the profession by members of underrepresented groups, particularly racial and ethnic minorities, and a commitment to having a study body that is diverse with respect to gender, race, and ethnicity.'

          "There is also a new proposed section of the standard that would read, 'a law school shall demonstrate by concrete action a commitment to having a faculty and staff that are diverse with respect to gender, race and ethnicity.'

          "Smith, who is dean of the California Western School of Law School, said the changes to the standard, including the inclusion of the word 'diversity,' are meant to give schools more guidance and reflect the Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld the affirmative action admissions policy at the University of Michigan Law School as a way of promoting equal opportunity.

          "Smith said the importance of diversity is clearly articulated in former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's majority opinion. 'We will see schools being more creative in how they promote diversity,' he said.

          "Still, Smith found his defense a tough sell to the mostly conservative commissioners, many of whom questioned the need for a change in language.  (Federal law dictates that the president choose four members of the eight-member panel and Congress the other four, and that the commission have no more than four representatives of any political party at a time. But that can result in Republicans appointing 'independent' members who are highly skeptical of the use of race, and Democrats doing the reverse when they control the selection process.)

          "Gerald A. Reynolds, chairman of the panel, told Smith that 'it seems wholly inappropriate to force values on a school.'  A number of commissioners also disagreed with Smith's assertion that law schools are in agreement over the importance of racial diversity.

          "Bernstein and a number of commissioners said they take issue with the 'diversity' addition and the inclusion of 'race' in the standard.  Richard Sander, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, focused his comments not on institutions' consideration of race but on the negative effects he sees affirmation active having on black law school students.  He said the most recent data available - which are from 1991 - show that black students are 2.5 times more likely than white students not to graduate law school, and four times more likely to fail the bar on their first attempt.   'We are essentially setting them up for failure under this system,' he told the commission.

          "Sander argued that a cascade effect is in place, in which the top-tier law schools, using what he calls a 'racial double-standard,' admit minority students who, in a race-blind system, would be accepted into second-tier schools.  The second-tier schools thus admit what Sander says are unqualified minority applicants because the schools feel pressure to have a diverse student body.  If minority students at first-tier schools struggle academically, they can become disheartened and dropout, he said.

          "Sander's argument is predicated on the idea that a student is better off flourishing at a lower-ranked school than floundering at a more elite institution.  Richard Lempert, a University of Michigan law professor, disagreed with Sander's premise.  He said that black students are better off at elite law schools because of the doors the schools open. 'We need to tell people what the risks are of failure and let them decide for themselves,' Lempert said.  'If there is no affirmative action, blacks are less likely to get high-paying jobs and careers that lead to judgeships.  Someone who you think will fail might be on bar review, and someone who you think will pass the bar review might fail.'

          "Lempert's argument that there is still a 'moral imperative' for affirmative action is based largely on studies he has conducted over the past 25 years at Michigan.  He said the numbers show that although minority students generally entered with lower credentials and left with lower grades than their white counterparts, few flunked out and most enjoyed fruitful careers.   The bar-passage rate was not substantially lower for those students, his work shows.

          "But like many of Smith's arguments in favor of affirmative action, most of Lempert's comments fell on deaf ears.   Commissioner Jennifer Braceras went so far as to question Lempert's motives:  'I'm concerned you are justifying affirmative action because of your own white guilt,' she said.

          " 'I don't feel guilty at all,' Lempert responded.

          " 'It's not about what's best for black students.  It's about aesthetics,' or having the looks of a diverse campus, another commissioner, Abigail Thernstrom, asserted.

          "Reynolds, the chairman, said that if the point is to give black students a fair shot in the admissions process, why not lower the bar for everyone and 'do away with the conversation of racial preferences?'

          "Lempert maintained that the high price of law schools and a sometimes 'hostile environment' once a minority student enrolls can also lead to higher-than-average dropout rates.  Sander responded by saying that 'there's a crushing process of discovery in the first or second years for black students who realize they are there because of affirmative action.'

          "Added Thernstrom, who is a political independent but a frequent critic of the use of racial preferences:  'If [students] are saying, "You're an affirmative action baby," the admissions policy is generating the stereotypes.'

          "But Michael Yaki, one of two Democrats on the panel, came to Lempert's defense, saying:  'We create the stigmatization.  When we are saying, "they are going to fail," we perpetuate the stigma, and it bothers me to the core.'

          "There were testy moments throughout the briefing, as speakers questioned each other's motives, as well as their credentials.  Commissioners interrupted each other, hands were raised and ignored, and feelings appeared to be hurt.  Despite the occasional incivility, there was one point of unanimous agreement: the need for more data on minority student performance once in law school. 'More transparency is always better,' Braceras said.

          "Many pledged to support proposed legislation from Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) that would force schools to release more information about graduates and incoming students. 'My sense is that black students aren't always aware that they fall into the desperate category,' said Ashley L. Taylor, Jr., one of the panel's four Republicans.

          "Both Lempert and Sander called for the commission to bring together a group of politically neutral social scientists to sift through existing data on affirmative action in law school, to which Thernstrom asked:  'Is there such a thing as a neutral social scientist?'

-- Excerpted from the Chronicle of Higher Ed
Article by Elia Powers
Last known link:
Chronicle 06-19-06


Top
Top of Page: Racial Paradox

DOWNLOAD:

The Racial Paradox of the Corporate Law Firm

Download Professor Sander's entire 68 page study regarding the startlingly high rate of attrition of black lawyers at the nation's top law firms (size = 370 KB):

Racial Paradox (Sander - in PDF format)


Excerpt from "Racial Paradox"
by Richard H. Sander

          "Although nonwhites now account for nearly one-fifth of new attorneys, they still make up less than four percent of the partners at large law firms.  Most commentators have blamed some combination of [law] firm discrimination and minority disinterest for this disparity.  In this Article, the author uses several new sources of data to explore this phenomenon, finding significant support for the following findings:

  • "Each of the major nonwhite groups (Asians, Hispanics and blacks) are as interested during law school in careers with large firms as are whites.
  • "Large law firms use very large hiring preferences for blacks, with the result that blacks are overrepresented among firm hires (relative to their numbers among law graduates) and tend to have much lower grades than their white counterparts.
  • "The large preferences are plausibly linked to a variety of counterproductive mechanisms that cumulatively produce very high black attrition from firms and consequently low partnership rates.
  • "Similar patterns, on a less intense scale, affect Hispanics entering large firms.

          "While many questions are open, the author concludes that aggressive racial preferences at the law school and law firm level tend to undermine in some ways the careers of young attorneys and may, in the end, contribute to the continuing white dominance of large-firm partnerships."  -- Professor Richard H. Sander, UCLA Law School


Afterthought by Tim Fay, Editor:  Several years before I met Prof. Rick Sander, I had the opportunity to gain a very unique insight into the minority hiring practices of our larger law firms.

          On that occasion several years ago I approached a very large law firm with very nice offices in DC, Chicago, and LA regarding pro bono representation of Adversity.Net (a non-profit) in a dispute with the IRS.   The firm in question had a very good practice in non-profit law and dealings with the IRS.

          I had several productive meetings with the pro bono manager for the firm and she thought Adversity.Net's case against the IRS was strong, and that her firm could provide effective legal assistance to us under their pro bono program.

          At my final meeting, the pro bono manager informed me that she had presented my case to the law firm's partners, and that they had refused to accept my case. 

          Why? 

          Because, in her words, "the partners are concerned that representing Adversity.Net (which strongly opposes racial preferences) would negatively affect their diversity hiring efforts."

          She then added a devastatingly candid comment:  "I don't know why the partners are so concerned that blacks would not want to be associated with a firm representing Adversity.Net since none of our black recruits ever stay long enough to even be considered for partner track anyway."

          I related this story to Professor Sander a year before he published "The Racial Paradox of the Corporate Law Firm".  I like to think that my story about Adversity.Net's failed effort to find pro bono representation helped Prof. Sander decide to focus on the low retention rate of blacks, a.k.a., "diversity hires", at America's large law firms.  "The Racial Paradox" represents a natural, useful, and very appropriate follow-on to Rick Sander's seminal 2004 study "A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools"  Objective study of the unintended consequences of racial preferences at all levels is long overdue.  -- Tim Fay, Adversity.Net, Inc.


END (3)  NEWS COVERAGE -- Affirmative Action in Law Schools
July 2006

 

Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools
1.
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

2.
NEWS COVERAGE:
Nov. 2004

3.
News July 2006
4.
N.A.S. Research:
Forced Diversity Has No Educational Benefit
Go To:
Education Main Index

Main Site Index:

Top:
Go to Top of Page
MAIN NEWS
Index

by category
DONATE
Contributions are tax-deductible
HORROR
STORIES

and case studies
TERMS
and Definitions
SEARCH
Site
LEGAL HELP
Firms and Resources
LINKS MESSAGE
Board
GO:  Home Page
Home
Page Index
URL's and page names for site
Favorite
EDITORIALS

National opinion
DIRTY RACIAL
POLITICS

How Quotas are Enforced
EDITOR'S DESK
What's Hot!
RACIAL
PROFILING

D.O.J. Requires It!
EDUCATIONAL
TESTING

News Analysis
CENSUS 2000
Racism
ABOUT US

Copyright 2002 Adversity.Net, Inc., an IRS 501(c)(3) tax-exempt educational organization.  For problems or questions regarding this web contact editor@adversity.net    Last updated: July 23, 2006.

Go to Adversity.Net Home Page

*  We use the term reverse discrimination reluctantly and only because it is so widely understood.  In our opinion there really is only one kind of discrimination.