Why I Hate (NAA) Colored People

Posted in Uncategorized on February 5th, 2010 by bl1y

The NAACP are a bunch of race-baiting political hacks.  Happy Black History Month.

Every year the NAACP releases their Congressional report card, which analyzes whether Congressmen on legislation for or against the position taken by the NAACP.  The NAACP describes the votes they look at as the “bread and butter civil rights agenda.”  Bullshit.

Many of the votes they look at are indeed the exact type of thing you’d expect the NAACP to care about, such as the death penalty, hate crime legislation and wage discrimination.  But, several of the votes don’t really fit in:

Confirmation of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.

Protecting Second Amendment gun rights in Washington, DC.

Allowing Judicial modification to avoid foreclosure.

There’s a bunch that are pretty questionable things to include in the NAACP report card, but here’s the one that first made me realize something weird is going on:

Delay of digital TV transition.

What the hell?  Are they serious?  Keeping analog TV around a little longer is a “bread and butter” civil rights issue?  The only reason I can see that stuff like this makes it in is that the NAACP is cherry picking certain votes that will make the right politicians score higher than the wrong ones.  Confirming Hillary Clinton isn’t a civil rights issue, it’s not a race issue, but it is an issue that only Republicans would vote against.  It makes the test an easy A for the Democrats.

The NAACP needs to get back to doing what it should be doing, fighting for equality and civil rights, and giving white people an excuse to use the phrase “colored people.”

Tags: , , , ,

Legal Market Garden

Posted in Dumb Ideas Girls Have on January 28th, 2010 by bl1y

Looks like it’s time for yet another associate to sue their firm for discrimination.  This time Kamisha Menns, a black Jamaican woman, is suing after being fired from Howrey.  From her complaint, here’s the basic plot:

Menns was working in DC at Freshfields, completely happy and satisfied with her job.  Her complaint actually says she was happy and not looking to change firms.

Menns met a partner from Howrey while at an anti-trust conference who began recruiting her to work at Howrey.  She put in an application to work at Howrey’s Belgium office, was flown in for interviews with twelve different attorneys there.

Howrey then offered Menns a job in Belgium, along with a higher salary, moving expenses, and 10,000 Euro (~14,000 USD) signing bonus.

A bunch of shit that’s in dispute happened, Menns filed a complaint with Howrey’s main office, and then Howrey was fired, a mere 5 months after she was hired.

Menn’s argument is basically that she kept getting work away despite getting good reviews, and the firing was in retaliation for complaining about possible discrimination.  Unfortunately for her, her own account her hiring are pretty strong evidence that there wasn’t any prejudice against her.  You don’t go to that sort of effort to recruit a black women if you’re a bigot.

My guess about what happened is she interviewed really well but turned out to be a substandard lawyer.  The positive reviews were likely the result of people simply being polite and not wanting to insult her.  Attorneys don’t get bad reviews until a firm has decided to build a case for their dismissal.  Otherwise, lawyers being completely spineless wimps, everyone gets a good review.

And if I’m wrong, and she really was discriminated against, just think about what exactly that would mean.  Howrey actively recruited her when she wasn’t looking for a new job.  Did they really go to great lengths hire her for the sole purpose of just firing her a few months later and leaving her stranded in a foreign country with poor job prospects?  If so, is that the type of firm you want to get into a legal battle with?  This isn’t Jim v. Dwight level office pranks.  If Menns’s accusations are true, she should get the hell away from there, quick.

PS: Menns is suing for $30 million dollars.  What a fucking joke.

Tags: , , , , ,

Breaking: Black Woman Angry About Something

Posted in Dumb Ideas Girls Have on January 25th, 2010 by bl1y

As you may already be aware, The Deep End on ABC aired to almost universally bad reviews.  But, Natalie Holder-Winfield, a “diversity lawyer” (whatever that means, I think she just tells you to hire blacks to avoid law suits) has managed to complain about the one thing the show got right: diversity.

“While I can toss out most of the show’s antics as hyperbole — for starters, no partner would allow a first year associate to go within 20 feet of a client–the show is 100% correct when it comes to life at a firm for blacks and Latinos. For the most part, we do not exist.

Scenes like the one where Dylan, the first year associate who is described as a Boy Scout, is tapped for mentorship, help explain why associates of color only account for 15% of law firm associates. Rowdy Kaiser, a partner who drives a smoking Porsche, actually appoints himself as Dylan’s “secret mentor.” And, he lives up to his promise. Behind the scenes, he coaches Dylan and even helps him to navigate a difficult case where the firm would have lost a potential client if Dylan made one false move.

However, there are rarely secret mentors for associates of color. Many of the associates of color I interviewed for my book, Recruiting & Retaining a Diverse Workforce: New Rules for a New Generation were treated like outsiders. They were not invited to social functions with partners and they certainly were not tapped for secret mentoring. Yet, study after study shows the importance of mentoring in any profession.

Now, technically, the show has two black people: Susan Oppenheim (a named partner in the firm) and Malcolm Bennet (a first year associate).

Yet, when Susan is introduced to Malcolm, she literally closes the door in his face. She disregards him and is more concerned with the firm’s politics, i.e., how he was hired, rather than eying him as her secret mentee.

The white associates in the show were given so much access and support. While they commiserated about the same old things that annoy all associates, they could at least dream about a future at the firm. They were a part of the firm.”

I can’t say for sure that I follow Ms. Holder-Winfield’s complaint.  Is it that the show doesn’t have enough black people, or that real law firms don’t?  Well, she can’t just be complaining about firms not having enough black people, because she otherwise wouldn’t need to talk so much about the show.  So, I guess her complaint is that the show is too accurate in this regard.

What’s worse about her complaint, aside from being confusing, is that she acknowledges that there are indeed black people working at the firm.  So far the show has 9 main characters, 3 partners, 5 associates, and 1 paralegal.  Of those 9, one partner and one associate are black.  I’ll let you do some thinking about what percentage of the United States is black.  Blacks are 12.4% of the population, but 22% of the people working at the firm; 25% of the attorneys.  They’re overrepresented by a factor of 100%!  And Holder-Winfield is complaining about discrimination by the firm?  What a jackass.

Just to make Holder-Winfield’s comments even more ridiculous is that she completely misrepresents how the white characters are treated:

Dylan (white) is intentionally given a start date 10 days late to put him into a reputational hole that he’ll now have to dig his way out of.

Addy (white) is given assignments by two different partners that, due to time constraints, cannot both be complete.  She is shut down when trying to explain this and is berated when she finds a solution by getting help from a fellow associate.

Beth (white) is talked down to by her lawyer-father for not being aggressive enough to survive in the legal world, and is then passive-aggressively taunted by a client when she allows her convictions to collapse.

Doesn’t really seem like the whites were given as much access and support as Holder-Winfield imagines they are.  Not only that, but law firms aren’t as all-white as she imagines.  At my firm there were 7 starting corporate associates.  3 were white, 3 were hispanic, and 1 was some sort of ambiguous Near-East/Indian blend.  One of the 3 white people was a French national, and I think counts for some diversity points.

But I digress.  What’s really obnoxious about Holder-Winfield is that she thinks partners ought to select their mentees based on race.  She wanted Susan to mentor Malcolm simply because they’re both black.  At that point in the show, Addy has been working for Susan and just proven herself to be very intelligent and capable.  Susan selects her to second chair an important trial.  So, it looks like Susan has just chosen a mentor based on the content of her character, but Holder-Winfield wants Susan to throw that away and choose Malcolm based solely on the color of his skin.

Ms. Holder-Winfield, you are what is wrong with this country.  And, just to counteract how incredibly wrong you are, here’s something that’s incredibly right (though so very far from earning diversity points):


PS: Malcolm already has a partner in his corner.  One of the (white) partners goes against established firm hiring procedures to bring in a hand-selected associate.  I guess he technically doesn’t have a secret mentor, but isn’t a public mentor, going to bat for you on your very first day of work a whole lot better?

Tags: , , , , , ,

Reason Not to Go to Law School #16

Posted in Reasons Not to Go to Law School on January 18th, 2010 by bl1y

Whiny minority kids.

As I’ve mentioned before, the Race to Be Offended is a pretty popular sport among ultra left-wing politically correct types, and law school is a breeding ground for them. Normally people say dumb things when they’re in too much of a hurry to consider facts, such as a President calling a police officer stupid for investigating what appeared to be an obvious break in.

Now, imagine combining that level of stupidity with the drunken revelry that takes place on the last day of a semester’s exams in law school.

After the last exams of my 3L Fall semester, I was on the balcony of one of our dorms for the traditional drink-till-your-face-falls-off. Towards the end, a black student and Jewish student got into a rather bizarre argument: who was treated worse, blacks or Jews.

Aside from the fact that it’s strange for anyone to even bother arguing over who’s discriminated against more (they couldn’t just agree that discrimination is bad; everyone wants to be special), what made this particularly bizarre was that they were arguing over which group was most discriminated against in universities.

They went to different schools, but no surprise, black student reported his school treated black students worse and Jewish student reported his school treated Jewish students worse. Both of these students went to mother-freaking Ivy League schools for undergrad.

I knew both students, and neither one was a rags-to-riches story. Both came from wealthy, influential families. They were seriously arguing over who suffered the most from the discriminatory effects of education opportunities afforded to less than .01% of population.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,