Monday, October 23, 2006

Shrimps, Boils, and No More Teasers

The final installment of the anonymous comment is here. In the first installment, the anonymous commenter chided me for misrepresenting the fact that the "Cajun Shrimp Boil" was racially exclusive. Then there was this post in which a group of lawyers defended the exclusive nature of the event. In the post analyzing the second paragraph of the comment, I explained how there was nothing extreme about opposing affirmative action, and that a large percentage -- possibly a majority -- of Michigan voters feel the same way, for example. This was all in the context of excluding a law firm from a minority recruiting consortium because three of its lawyers had represented the plaintiffs in the University of Michigan affirmative action lawsuit.

Here is the rest of the comment:

Finally, you are forgetting (or perhaps you are just ignorant of)the fact that Twin Cities Diversity in Practice is a consortium of law firms and corporations in Minnesota. Minority bar organizations do not have a vote on who is or is not invited to be a member of this organization. The fact is that Maslon's law firm peers - Dorsey, Faegre, Briggs and the like - decided against Maslon's admission after taking the debate to their own diversity committees. As such, the "majority" also find Maslon's representation of anti-affirmative action plaintiffs counterproductive to the goals of the organization. It became obvious to most people that Maslon's push to be in TCDIP was not motivated by a genuine desire to promote diversity and affirmative action. In fact, they were the only large law firm that declined to submit an application when the group first formed. They only became interested in the organization after many of its corporate clients - who ironically are part of TCDIP - demanded it. If you don't believe me, check the date of the Maslon application and compare it to the others.

Perhaps you should do a little more fact-checking before you begin spreading inaccuracies that are libelous.

P.S. I wholeheartedly agree with your statement that not all minority attorneys think alike. Many of us actually remember that we have benefited from affirmative action policies at some point in our lives - either directly or indirectly through our ancestors. In fact, even though you'd loathe to admit it, I'm positive that you have as well. At least some of us remember not to pull up the ladder behind us.

P.P.S. I suspect that you won't print this, but who knows, you might actually have some redeeming qualities after all if you do.

Me: There is so much to respond to. In the case of excluding Maslon from the group and in the case of excluding whites from the shrimp boil, the commenter wants to have it both ways. 1) We didn't do it; and 2) we were perfectly justified in doing it.

On the question of "pull[ing] up the ladder behind" myself, please note that I did not express an opinion regarding affirmative action. However, the commenter provides ammunition for those who say that affirmative action creates a stigma. What does the commenter know about my grades and test scores? That is exactly reason that some opponents cite, saying that people assume that you achieved everything as a result of affirmative action.

Finally, I did post the comment, albeit in chunks, so I hope that I now have redeeming qualities.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home