Friday, October 06, 2006

Posts, Promises, and Lies

OK. I know I promised to wrap up the shrimp boil stuff (see all the posts below), but I got a great new comment to an earlier post:

What interests me, if I may return to the topic of the invitation for a moment, is the fact that it reads, and I quote:

"This event is for minority attorneys, minority summer associates and minority law students.

No other guests please."

Now, if your anonymous commenter was correct, and there were white guests attending this shrimp boil, then what was the point of this invitation? If it's aimed solely to allow minorities an environment where they can speak freely in the company of other miorities, why were the white guests invited there at all? That seems to me to defeat the purpose of having, as the signers of that letter put it, "some of the organization’s activities...directed specifically and exclusively at attorneys of color."

The organizers of this event cannot have it both ways. Either the invitation was for minorities or it was not. If it was for minorities only, then they should admit as much and take their lumps for it (what lumps they will take; personally, I don't see the Star-Tribune getting too hot and bothered about this). If it wasn't, then they should admit they screwed up the invitation and deal with the consequences, instead of this heavy-handed attempt at damage control after the fact.

Me: They crashed. Who reads the fine print of a flyer? Plus there are a lot of summer law clerk events that are word of mouth. I think that no one would think to ask whether certain races were excluded. So the invitation was exclusive, but I suspect that there was no one at the door keeping people out.

We will finish this up next week, I promise.


Blogger Mahan said...

So, all the foofawraw about this event, all the sound and fury, then, really did signify nothing!

Amazing. Simply amazing. I wonder if the attendees felt stifled by the presence of the crashers?

October 07, 2006 2:04 PM  
Blogger Peter said...


I respectfully disagree. Someone made the invitation racially exclusive. This was not a very public decision (at least someone has some shame), which explains the fact that they can't keep their story straight. Some defend the right to have racially exclusive events, others claim that they intended no such thing.

Because they were not vocal about the restricted nature of the invitation, enforcement was lax. But that does not change the fact that someone tried to make it "whites not allowed."

October 10, 2006 5:55 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home