The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Shearman summer blows offer b/c AA comment
Poast new message in this thread
Date: October 22nd, 2005 12:14 PM Author: Floppy Chocolate Codepig Stage What was that story again? I'm trying to tell someone working at Shearman that they're TTT and I can't remember the details. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4107939) |
 |
Date: October 22nd, 2005 12:15 PM Author: irate aromatic black woman I'm sure his comment was right on the mark. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4107940) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 12:56 PM Author: vivacious orchid regret i suspect there were only consequences because the comment was entirely accurate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4108143) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 12:58 PM Author: aphrodisiac godawful indian lodge Here's my question: do you think that big firms actually give a shit about diversity, or do they only care about apparent diversity? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4108148) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 1:01 PM Author: amethyst space The latter. The summer associate's apparent failure to understand this fairly obvious reality was enitrely dispositve on his career with SS. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4108159) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 1:12 PM Author: vivacious orchid regret law is especially staid and formulaic. it doesn't particularly benefit, except perhaps at the academic level, from different perspectives and challenges to its obviously inefficient aspects. mere statistical diversity is fine. but if diversity means a force that engages the futility of changing something that neither seeks not urgently needs change, then it is entirely a burden. that's why it, like other burdens, is segregated into pointless "committees," where a title and bureaucratic sense of belonging is generally enough to neutralize the disruptive force. law firms are utterly ill-equipped to drive systematic change. that someone who purportedly cares deeply about doing so would choose to work in a law firm exposes that person as either an imbecile or a fraud. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4108208) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 3:42 PM Author: Thirsty Stag Film Genital Piercing "or do they only care about apparent diversity?"
NO ONE cares about actual diversity. NO ONE. |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 9:54 PM Author: Know-it-all quadroon Not even minorities?
I guess they may not care about the principle of diversity, but I'm sure most care about it in terms of creaing more "diverse" campuses and firms, with more minorities.
Of course, if they could have campuses and firms be all-minority, many/most would probably prefer that. Maybe that's what you mean.
But I do think there are a few folks out there who do value "diversity", to the point where they will sacrifice excellence and fairness to accomplish it. |
|
Date: November 30th, 2005 10:44 PM Author: pale vibrant toaster center I do! hth!
Okay, sorry, I was trying to channel saltybabe. |
|
Date: November 30th, 2005 10:55 PM Author: supple sickened sound barrier party of the first part what a dumb comment. You think a black, white, hispanic, or female attorney doesn't care if all of her co-workers were white males? You think a white male wouldn't care if all his co-workers were black females? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4424681) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 12:17 PM Author: Clear Cowardly Den Here's mention of it on infirmation:
http://www.infirmation.com/bboard/clubs-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002WgA
And:
http://www.infirmation.com/bboard/clubs-fetch-msg.tcl?topic=Greedy%20NY&msg_id=002WoJ |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 12:43 PM Author: Floppy Chocolate Codepig Stage thanks (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4108079) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 1:29 PM Author: Anal faggot firefighter set That's crazy he was punished for that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4108295) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 1:36 PM Author: Cocky legend library Funny they would fire him... they should have just not extended him an offer, unless they were trying to make an example out him.
Oh well, we all know how Shearman loves to fire people. they have to keep "shearmanated" in the lexicon. |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 2:34 PM Author: excitant bat shit crazy school cafeteria fat ankles you need to Wiki "shearmanated" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4108688) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 7:48 PM Author: Flushed Wonderful Lay Pervert someone did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shearmanated
|
|
Date: November 30th, 2005 10:18 PM Author: White electric affirmative action Regardless of his convictions, it was an inappropriate forum. Whether blacks are responisible for 9/11 or lower academic standards are irrelevant to his firing, he pretty much said - I don't respect the minority partners, associaties, colleague etc. and I cannot work with them. Love or hate AA, if you can't work comfortable with minorities, and you make that known at any point, you will never get hired. The guy contentions may have been valid, but deciding to voice showed he was an idiotic. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4424166) |
Date: October 22nd, 2005 12:51 PM Author: aphrodisiac godawful indian lodge I can't believe someone got fired for this, assuming that the second linked post is accurate. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4108118) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 12:58 PM Author: beta background story He should have been fired for incredibly poor judgment. This was a meeting of the DIVERSITY COMMITTEE at a law firm during a summer-long job interview. Regardless of whether his question was legitimate, it was stupid to ask. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4108147) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 12:59 PM Author: amethyst space This seems right. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4108151) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 12:59 PM Author: sapphire church chad I agree. As a later post on Greedy NY pointed out, this is akin to championing anti-tobacco positions at a function sponsored by your firm's big tobacco client. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4108153) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 1:02 PM Author: aphrodisiac godawful indian lodge Except that it was a purely internal firm function. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4108165) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 1:03 PM Author: lilac diverse stain The difference of course being that while the tobacco co. is a paying client, the diversity committee is not, and makes decisions that affect the firm's internal structure/make-up. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4108171) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 1:13 PM Author: sapphire church chad Doesn't matter. I'm sure you could make the argument that people who are outspoken at internal meetings will still know to be deferential at client meetings, but if I was evaluating summers, that's not a risk I'd be willing to take. Look, your job as a summer is to just make that minimum impression needed to secure an offer. If you have strong convictions, you can excuse yourself, raise it up with a partner afterwards, etc. But if you feel the need to be a public muck-raker every time a belief of yours is challenged, go find another firm that doesn't care about tact. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4108213) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 1:16 PM Author: lilac diverse stain This wasn't muck-raking, though. It was really quite tame. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4108227) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 1:20 PM Author: sapphire church chad From the GA post: "[the person in question] inquired about the tension, if any, between the quest for diversity and the pursuit of excellence. he cited three specific sources [stanford and yale journals] charging that pressures for diversity and the concomitant lowering of standards were largely responsible for pre-9/11 intelligence failures, diminished effectiveness of emergency responders, and the death of one of the first female fighter pilots as she attempted to land on an aircraft carrier."
Seriously, even if you were to question lowering academic standards, can't you do it without blaming blacks and women for 9/11? |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 1:21 PM Author: heady field sneaky criminal everyone knows the jews were responsible for 9/11. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4108249) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 1:55 PM Author: sapphire church chad Friggin left wing media keeps blaming it on Muslims. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4108442) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 3:41 PM Author: Claret plaza pocket flask it's not like he was pulling this stuff out of his ass. he cited yale and stanford law review articles for heaven's sake! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4109145) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 1:00 PM Author: lilac diverse stain Isn't it a shame that those who claim to celebrate diversity simply cannot tolerate diversity of opinions?
If the above link is true, the summer's comment was completely appropriate and was in no way an insult. S&S should be ashamed for firing the kid. |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 1:06 PM Author: vivacious orchid regret this really says everything that matters on this topic (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4108188) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 1:12 PM Author: amethyst space Because its a SHAM and your supposed to be mature enough to realize this and just play along. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4108209) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 1:16 PM Author: Amber abusive principal's office Exactly. Like Sandy O'Connor: this is constitutional, but only for 25 years, and please ignore the fact that it's the loosest tailoring we've ever seen, and just make sure you don't say out loud that your diversity factors boil down to massive weighting of two minority groups and have nothing to do with a true diversity of viewpoints. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4108226) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 1:18 PM Author: amethyst space And its not like these AA hires ever make partner anyway (making a show of diversity when its cheap is one thing, when its expensive quite another), so just keep your mouth shut. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4108234) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 1:01 PM Author: aphrodisiac godawful indian lodge It was a polite and appropriate question. The DIVERSITY COMMITTEE should be able to explain the interaction between pursuing DIVERSITY and maintaining high standards. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4108160) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 2:06 PM Author: Flushed Wonderful Lay Pervert Wasn't the guest speaker a client or someone they wanted as a client??? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4108518) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 1:09 PM Author: heady field sneaky criminal If it was simply a internal diversity thing, where questions were welcomed, then a summer should be free to voice his concerns.
However from what I heard, this dude was a bit of an asshat the entire summer, and like Madame Cunt, never gave up or relented, even when asked by the higher ups to take it easy. |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 1:19 PM Author: salmon laughsome potus Typical Shearman TTT stuff. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4108239) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 1:21 PM Author: amethyst space Would it be fair to classify his comments as decadent, but not shrewd? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4108252) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 3:42 PM Author: Claret plaza pocket flask i think it might just be. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4109156) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 3:42 PM Author: Translucent racy office LOL (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4109159) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 2:24 PM Author: comical up-to-no-good keepsake machete box office I think
1) The firm is wrong to shove this shit down everyone's throats. There is not a consensus among intelligent lawyers that AA should be practiced. The firm is alienating several (half?) of its attorneys and future attorneys by acting as if there is.
2) The SA is one of those guys who doesn't "get it." It is clear to anyone with sense that his questions would make coworkers and clients uncomfortable. It's obviously inappropriate to make coworkers and clients uncomfortable to express an opinion about a political issue (unless it's an issue worth losing/quitting your job over). |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 2:52 PM Author: Translucent racy office #1 is wrong but I agree that this guy showed some incredibly poor judgment in bringing up these things in this context. Being able to excercise good judgment depending on the context is as much a "qualification" in law as how many As one got during 1L. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4108794) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 3:00 PM Author: swollen provocative electric furnace (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4108835) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 3:02 PM Author: Translucent racy office if that's true, yeah. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4108858) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 3:48 PM Author: narrow-minded psychic It does; but still seems like something more is missing from this story. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4109209) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 3:57 PM Author: comical up-to-no-good keepsake machete box office The guy apparently came prepped with data and questions to confront the guy speaking on behalf of his firm. So we're talking about poor judgment over an extended period of time. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4109271) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 10:00 PM Author: Know-it-all quadroon "if i recall correctly, it wasn't the question that did the kid in-- rather, the next week or something they pulled him aside and asked him to apologize or something (i don't know the details), and he obstinately refused, and was just a general jackass."
In other words, he was fired for displaying basic integrity, and not being willing to "apologize" for asking a perfectly legimitate and legitimate question.
The fact that you consider this "obstinant" and "jaskassy" is frankly distubring.
|
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 10:05 PM Author: Peach state windowlicker agreed. i am also very much disturbed by some of the responses here. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4112197) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 10:07 PM Author: Know-it-all quadroon I'm troubled by your moniker, but otherwise agree. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4112206) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 10:08 PM Author: Peach state windowlicker oh, the monkiker is like an inside joke to me. ill change it when i grow fully tired of it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4112218) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 5:29 PM Author: lavender passionate karate brethren I wonder if this is getting conflated with a Shearman incident this summer where a SA called another SA a racial slur, then only gave a half-hearted apology when directed to do so. That guy was asked to leave...something does sound off about the above story. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4109983) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 5:55 PM Author: appetizing tanning salon Nope, it's true. The guy later got a consulting gig. The incident this summer is separate. Do you know any more details about that one? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4110175) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 7:35 PM Author: Unhinged Bisexual Stage Feces the story was that he was the TYPE of person that would make an anti-AA comment at a diversity meeting, which was run by an outside organization. it made the firm look bad, was impolite, awkward, annoying, obnoxious, etc.
apparrantly, he exhibited these traits throughout the summer.
edit: i think it would have been different if he had made an offhand comment of his position to his coworkers in a different setting. folks might not agree with him and be turned off by him, but if this had happened - i doubt he would have been fired. |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 7:46 PM Author: Flushed Wonderful Lay Pervert The Shearmanites I have talked to about the incident agree with your assessment. The guy was not cut-out for law firm life... he wasn't going to last long no matter what. They agreed that the firm went overboard, but they didn't think that this was a case of an innocent bumbler caught up in a PC trap.
|
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 7:53 PM Author: Startled cruise ship organic girlfriend i have a feeling he's going to do something similar at his consulting job.
he should go out tucker max style. |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 9:50 PM Author: hyperventilating crackhouse I heard shearman fired someone on the spot for a similar incident this summer.
I think its time people stop making excuses for shearman ("not cut out for law firm life") and realize what type of operation they are running. I was told that one of the managing/hiring partners is some sort of diversity loving freak, and loses his shit every time someone questions his 100 hours of diversity indoctrination during the summer.
|
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 10:17 PM Author: Flushed Wonderful Lay Pervert "I heard shearman fired someone on the spot for a similar incident this summer."
I thought the circumstances surrounding this firing was more favorable to Shearman. Shearman is no angel, but it sounds like these guys deserved the boot. |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 10:26 PM Author: hyperventilating crackhouse do you know this summers story? care to share?
Also, it is no coincidence that this keeps on happening to shearman. Is one diversity lecture not enought per summer? |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 10:02 PM Author: Know-it-all quadroon In other words, you can question obviously questionable dogma as long as you do it quietly, where no one can hear you.
What a country. |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 10:23 PM Author: Flushed Wonderful Lay Pervert You have no 'right' to work at Shearman. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4112342) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 10:02 PM Author: Know-it-all quadroon I guess he forgot that liberals were fascists. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4112167) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 10:04 PM Author: Peach state windowlicker http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/production/files/murray0905.html |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 10:11 PM Author: Know-it-all quadroon Interesting, but "Churchill's agressive policy?"
I'm not sure how agressive it is to want to defend your country from foreign invaders who are bombing you. |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 10:15 PM Author: Peach state windowlicker the point was that the term defeatist was used to silence any opposition. what was the purpose in creating such a label, if not for silencing dissenting opinions? it doesnt matter if churchill was right or not, but rather what matters is that such a label was used. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4112265) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 10:17 PM Author: Know-it-all quadroon In that context, however, it seems entirely appropriate. People who wanted to surrender to the Germans were clearly defeatist, and they deserved to be labled as such.
Calling people who question AA "racist" is another matter entirely. There are many liberals, and even minorities, who oppose AA. |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 10:20 PM Author: Peach state windowlicker Yeah, but the term defeatist was most likely used on those who simply disagreed with Churchill's strategy, in effect invoking the idea that they wanted to surrender to Germany, and thus silencing them.
Think "Anti-American" in our times, and you will get a more accurate picture of what sort of uses these labels actually have. |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 10:28 PM Author: Know-it-all quadroon It seems pretty clear that the people who disagreed with Churchill's "agressive" policies (meaning his willingness to fight the Germans), were in fact those who wanted to negotiate a peace with Germany that would've essentially been a surrender. If this silenced them, it was presumably only because it was accurate.
Personally, I think the term "Anti-American" is usually used fairly accurately these days, so that doesn't clarify anything for me. |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 10:31 PM Author: Peach state windowlicker oh alright, so the use of anti-american to label those who didn't want the united states to go to war in iraq is perfectly fine with you? and to question the president is also anti-american, right? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4112429) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 11:00 PM Author: Know-it-all quadroon 1) Yes, given the stakes involved.
2) No, depending on the intent. |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 10:13 PM Author: hyperventilating crackhouse If only lawrence summer knew about this shearman story he could have avoided making the same mistake the sa made. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4112254) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 10:17 PM Author: Peach state windowlicker lol. except that summers was invited to give his academic opinion as a distinguished economist. thus his case was even worse. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4112284) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 10:19 PM Author: hyperventilating crackhouse According to all people who were there (shearman) the speaker invited comments and questions. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4112300) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 10:24 PM Author: Peach state windowlicker then that's even worse. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4112358) |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 10:42 PM Author: Curious idiot Can't you picture the situation? Some clown decides he's going to stand up for his minority viewpoint (among top law students) on a marginally important issue. His "questions" are actually vitriolic, overinflated statements.
No, affirmative action wasn't responsible for 9/11. AA simply means that a few black people get to go to Harvard. It's not worth fighting about when you're an associate at a diversity presentation and your job is to show good business sense. |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 10:57 PM Author: Peach state windowlicker how do you know for a FACT that AA didnt have a role to play in 9/11? you seem to be shooting down the idea so fast that you dont even give it a chance in your mind to surface, even though it doesnt seem like such a whacky idea, or at least to me it doesnt. why shouldnt it be investigated whether diversity, as practiced by AA, comes at a price to the bottom line? i dont see what's so inherently evil and wrong about that.
this hot issue will inevitably come to the surface at some point at which time it wont be so "wrong" to voice a rational opinion on the matter as more people will be asking these legitimate questions, and answering them.
|
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 11:14 PM Author: Curious idiot Because giving the lowest ten percent of employment spots to underqualified minorities doesn't affect the talent at the top. In each organization, AA hurts a small number of low-end whities.
There's nothing wrong with having an AA debate at an appropriate time. A firm diversity reception is not an appropriate time. |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 11:02 PM Author: Know-it-all quadroon "Some clown decides he's going to stand up for his minority viewpoint (among top law students) on a marginally important issue."
What top law students are you surveying? I don't know many here that support AA.
"His "questions" are actually vitriolic, overinflated statements."
This is certainly debatable. |
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 11:18 PM Author: Curious idiot A poll in our class last year showed we would vote 3 to 1 for Kerry over Bush. If over 1/3 of the Kerry supporters support AA, then my statement is validated for my class. I bet I'm right.
|
|
Date: October 22nd, 2005 10:17 PM Author: Know-it-all quadroon Oh, got it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4112288) |
|
Date: November 30th, 2005 9:39 PM Author: Cracking silver resort Considering that biglaw lawyers are paid to be agreeable vaginas, they should have fired him. Controversial dissenters don't fare well in a business that largely involves the brown-nosing of corporate bigwigs with overinflated egos. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4423757) |
|
Date: November 30th, 2005 9:43 PM Author: Cyan university twinkling uncleanness And the void replied: who cares?..?....?........?................?...................? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4423816) |
|
Date: November 30th, 2005 10:52 PM Author: Frum 180 institution for all this talk about "AA", there isn't one definition or method of implementation, so the generalities about AA causing this or that are not valid without more info.
And this guy was clearly a tool, he went and got research to make a big show at the diversity lunch and make everyone who organized it look like an idiot. His right not to agree w AA, his right to question its merits, it is the right of the firm to set its own policy on diversity, it is also their prerogative to not hire this person.
consequences and repercussions |
|
Date: November 30th, 2005 10:57 PM Author: Soul-stirring apoplectic corn cake fortuitous meteor I think AA is sufficiently defined for purposes of this discussion. It's being used here to mean preferences given on the basis of race. With prefences meaning firms/schools are willing to accept black (or other minority) candidates w/weaker objective qualifications. There may be different means of implementing this idea, but I don't think there's much ambiguity as to the definition of AA as used in this discussion. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4424705) |
|
Date: November 30th, 2005 11:34 PM Author: Cracking silver resort I care; therefore, I post. You don't care; therefore, you don't post. That's how discussion boards work. HTH. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4425189) |
|
Date: November 30th, 2005 11:00 PM Author: supple sickened sound barrier party of the first part his fault for being a fucking moron. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4424752) |
|
Date: November 30th, 2005 11:24 PM Author: Alcoholic police squad reading party Indeed - he failed to realize that law firms are NOT policy think-tanks, especially for very controversial ideas. Whatever the strengths or weaknesses of AA, large and midsize law firms must maintain AA policies in order to seriously pursue big-ticket private or public sector clients - a firm that ditches AA policies altogether can kiss its Vault ranking (and top clients) goodbye. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4425054) |
|
Date: November 30th, 2005 11:41 PM Author: Red bipolar mexican step-uncle's house He was probably a moron and hired because his daddy was someone influential. They probably agreed with his premise and fired him as a way to ease the tension.
Absent him being a douchebag, I can't see why he should be fired though. |
|
Date: November 30th, 2005 11:42 PM Author: lilac diverse stain You're become quite the uppity faggot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=283499&forum_id=2#4425305) |