Paul L. CaronDean
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
By Paul Caron
Following up on Friday's post, Justice Scalia's Death Exposes Deep Divisions On Georgetown Law School Faculty:
Legal Education | Permalink
@Francis W. Porretto - It seems that ideology is the main event here. Scalia is being treated with the same decency he showed others in his jurisprudence: none. Chickens coming home to roost and all... Anyway, isn't criticism of the dead just a sicilian greeting? Scalia, in his limitness humility, surely knew all about those.
Posted by: Reporter | Feb 24, 2016 2:23:11 PM
These "legacy and upper-class athletic admits" that you are fixated on benefit the bottom line of the university's donation accounts. Many institutions are at least as obsessed with making money as you seem to be with race.
Posted by: timbosama | Feb 24, 2016 1:02:15 PM
So continuing the very same train of thought, "timbo" posits that while AA admits are "racist," legacy and upper-class athletic admits that benefit white applicants 99% of the time are not. You are giving us some deep insights indeed - just not where you think.
Posted by: Unemployed Northeastern | Feb 24, 2016 11:11:58 AM
Mr. rightofgenghis: So the point of your plaint is that you don't like BLSA. We could probably gather that from your handle. So what else is new? More importantly, what has that to do with the fact that Justice Scalia is not uniformly revered in the legal community, mainly because his reactionary legal thinking is highly damaging to our people and democracy?
Posted by: Publius Novus | Feb 24, 2016 10:19:00 AM
You allege that large numbers of academically unqualified whites are accepted.
The universities' affirmative action criteria (e.g. lower SAT, GMAT, and LSAT scores) guarantee that academically unqualified blacks are accepted.
Read as much bias into that as you like.
Addressing a separate point, legacies and prowess in sports (as if blacks aren't also accepted for this) provide a tangible benefit for the university: they keep the alumni donations rolling in. But they likely harm the students from an academic standpoint. In any event, these are venal actions, not racist ones, and the students would likely be better off academically at a school more aligned with their ability.
Development cases - presumably this means bringing in students who are academically unqualified for the rigors of the given school with the intent of tutoring them up - sounds a lot like affirmative action admissions, but without the repellent racist taint.
Posted by: timbosama | Feb 24, 2016 8:33:38 AM
And when underqualified white students don't gain admission to places like UT-Austin, despite having an SAT/GPA metric that places them in the bottom 25% of applicants, some of them file lawsuits and the right wing holds them up as martyrs of merit. Oh I forgot the Plaintiff in Fisher v. University of Texas had relatives that went to Austin. Talk about, using Justice Sclia's words, a sense of "racial entitlement."
Posted by: Cent Rieker | Feb 24, 2016 5:58:30 AM
Just how much bias should we read into your comment regarding "alleged[ly] unqualified white students" as opposed to "unqualified black [students]?"
Posted by: Unemployed Northeastern | Feb 23, 2016 6:08:32 PM
Or, to put it another way, why would anyone expect C-students of any color to perform well academically at an A-student institution?
Posted by: timbosama | Feb 23, 2016 12:29:34 PM
And do these alleged unqualified white students perform better academically than their unqualified black counterparts?
Posted by: timbosama | Feb 23, 2016 12:24:36 PM
Unfortunately, reality disagrees with you. Underqualified white students are accepted in FAR greater numbers than AA admits at highly-selective institutions like Georgetown via legacy, development cases, and prowess in traditional upper-class sports like rowing, squash, and golf. Read Karabel, Golden, Deresiewicz, Bowen, etc.
Posted by: Unemployed Northeastern | Feb 23, 2016 9:36:10 AM
Georgetown law is going to be a hotbed for this type of controversy. It is an incredibly expensive school that gives out very little scholarship money (Approx. 40% get any money; less than 13% get half-tuition or more). The student body is smart but not brilliant, i.e., exactly the type of people to be most sensitive (and least forgiving) to minor differences in aptitude. The consequences of taking $300k and not getting prestige PI or Biglaw are catastrophic, so the middle range students will have no tolerance for any type of program (i.e. affirmative action) that threatens their employment prospects. Essentially, I think the student body will be very hostile to this type of clambering for power from a constituency that it perceives does not deserve to be there on merit.
Posted by: JM | Feb 23, 2016 9:22:44 AM
The BLSA letter references Justice Scalia's argument that lower-performing black students are not benefited by going to top-tier schools. The BLSA apparently does not like that argument.
I wonder what they would think if Justice Scalia had also noted that lower-performing white students would face the same challenges at top-tier schools. Fortunately, this is not a problem that the white student community has to face, however, because top-tier schools rightly do not accept lower-performing white students in the first place.
Perhaps the Justice should have included that obvious corollary to his argument, but is it really too much to expect the BLSA to be able to figure that out on their own?
Posted by: timbosama | Feb 23, 2016 9:12:34 AM
" Most working class whites, particularly non-college males, have been put under the ether of the conservative snake oil and the MSM’s false equivalency narrative."
Riiight! Whereas too many of the college grads spent so much time kowtowing to their progressive professors that they didn't notice their degrees would be useless, or focused on their lack of jobs after graduation, not realizing that it was the dominance of academic policy that drives job creators out of the markets. That snake oil is called *experience*, and all the jawing of academicians won't keep it out of our faces every day. Your sort of projection is an old progressive behavioral norm, but it's working less and less.
Posted by: Tom Billings | Feb 23, 2016 8:56:46 AM
How is #whitepeopleproblems not a micro-aggression? The law school community has had such a supposedly open mind for so long that it's brains have fallen out and ideological diversity is a complete joke. If you want your ideas and thinking to be challenged then get an MBA or a PH.D. If you want to guzzle uninhibited from the tit of unabashed liberal group think, go to law school.
Posted by: anon | Feb 23, 2016 8:45:49 AM
Black law students are in a snit over mourning for Scalia. They whine, "We're supposed to be the center of attention at all times!"
Posted by: LarryE | Feb 23, 2016 8:45:41 AM
Dear Publius Novus – I am not an old, white, male GULC alum. I’m a young, German/Swedish/English/Czech grad of a non-top-tier law school. I strongly identify and sympathize with students opposing the GULC BLSA (and the BLSA at my law school). As a somewhat recent grad of law school, I vividly recall the anti-white discrimination practiced on my campus, sanctioned by the BLSA and their faculty allies. I remember being kicked out of tutoring sessions that were restricted to “minorities only.” Yes, you read that right: non-minority students were specifically removed from classrooms because they weren’t the currently-fashionable skin color. I recall special office hours for “minorities only” where professors took affirmative steps to exclude non-minority students from their offices. You are welcome to point out that there was discrimination against racial minorities in the past. You are welcome to argue that you think that discrimination continues today. You can even argue that you think the remedy for that past and current discrimination against racial minorities is to engage in racial discrimination against non-minorities. But, you cannot argue that what is happening in higher education today is anything OTHER than discrimination based on race. Because it is. I have personally experienced it. Just because you happen to LIKE or APPROVE of racial discrimination against whites, does not mean it is not discrimination.
Opposition to these invidiously discriminatory policies is not some “bloodless” or reactionary/conservative legal theory. It is a real and practical opposition to the racial discrimination and the thoroughly corrupt law school administration/faculty power structure that currently supports it.
Posted by: rightofgenghis | Feb 23, 2016 7:09:18 AM
So iow your one of those guys who don't care what the constitution says or the function of the legislator, you want your SC justices to do what you think is best today, independent of the framework of the constitution. Got it.
Posted by: Jeff McCabe. | Feb 23, 2016 7:01:19 AM
And if you want to argue about Scalia's legacy or positions, for or against, it would be helpful for those of us who haven't read Supreme Court opinions to, you know, discuss them? Otherwise, you sound like entitled, whining babies who descend to pearl-clutching and character assassination.
Posted by: Bill Peschel | Feb 23, 2016 6:59:11 AM
Ideology is irrelevant to this. Decency is what matters -- and to celebrate any man's death, with the possible exception of one who was actively trying to kill you, is profoundly indecent.
Posted by: Francis W. Porretto | Feb 23, 2016 6:38:54 AM
Oh goodie. The "you're upset about apples? Well, I'm even more upset about oranges!!!" argument. Zzzz.
Posted by: AAReader | Feb 23, 2016 6:26:44 AM
I am an old, white, male GULC alum. Nevertheless, I strongly identify and sympathize with the GULC BLSA reaction. In the bloodless world of academia, it is fine to celebrate Justice Scalia’s ivory-tower reactionary/conservative legal theories and constructs. It is also important to understand that those theories and constructs impacted real people–black, white, brown, working and middle class–and that many, if not most, of the impacts and effects were deleterious to the people and their democracy. Most working class whites, particularly non-college males, have been put under the ether of the conservative snake oil and the MSM’s false equivalency narrative. It’s nice to know that at least some of our current crop of law students are both aware of the consequences of reactionary/conservative legal analysis and are willing to take the heat by standing up and saying so. Please count me with GULC BLSA.
Posted by: Publius Novus | Feb 23, 2016 6:22:25 AM
Posted by: mike livingston | Feb 23, 2016 4:16:00 AM
This blog is an Amazon affiliate. Help support TaxProf Blog by making purchases through Amazon links on this site at no cost to you.