If any any preference exists at all, it is for Jewish professionals, or lawyers in this case. How else can you explain their over representation in the legal field ? It certainly isn’t a preference for “one of our own”.
This isn’t or shouldn’t be about what is a level playing field for lawyers, black or white.
It is about the unrestricted choice of a client or clients to choose their own lawyer.
You say that diversity is a reasonable primary goal for society. This works both ways, right?
For example, in my law classes, there were about 2 females for every male. From what I know, this is representative of North American law classes. If this disproportionate representation becomes persistent, would you be in favor of quotas to make sure 50% of those admitted are men?
If diversity is a reasonable primary goal, then it is so no matter what the cause of the disproportionate representation and for whatever group.
I’m quoting your post in two halves and in opposite order; apologies if this confuses anybody but I don’t think it will.
I do understand the nuance there, but I’m not sure it’s all that different in the end. You said the judge would be himself propagating that impression. I don’t think that’s a fair characterization of the process. Makes it more easy for somebody else to propagate the opinion, maybe, but there’s no necessary or inevitable correlation between the two. It’s ammunition for that particular argument only when taken in bad faith, I think, which is why I compared the objection to anti-civil rights arguments. If somebody wants to come down against affirmative action anyway, they’ll probably have little trouble making the connection, but I don’t think a neutral party would feel compelled to do so, and I think that relieves the judge of responsibility for it.
I recognize your perspective from other threads. How stark would these differences need to be before you felt differently about diversity as a legitimate objective, just out of curiosity? How much of a sacrifice is acceptable in the pursuit of diversity, in other words? I ask only because it’s such a difficult question even when natural equality is presumed, and I wonder whether disposing of that presumption makes you more or less willing to be tolerant of inefficiency, so to speak.
I fully support affirmative action but I totally disagree with you. If you could prove to me that the playing field had actually been levelled and despite the elmiination of historical and institutional prejudice and effects of prejudice and slavery, some races were STILL over-represented in ivy league colleges and highly paid professions, well then, we’re done. We’ve done everything that should be done and probably a bit more. If genetic variance between races causes less than perfect proportional representation of different races in different professions, then there’s really not a lot more we should be doing.
look at the bright side - appointing diverse female lawyers with disabilities and non-traditional orientations may reduce the likelihood of success of the shakedown err lawsuit in question due to lower competence (which starts with lower gpa of students admitted to law school and propagates onwards). That can only be a good thing for the society at large.
Then again, we should keep in mind that some trials are decided by a jury. Now, if that jury itself is full of people who fit into all of the above protected classes simultaneously, having a lawyer “just like them” may be in fact a good thing for the plaintiff. Even if jurors cannot be bothered to or else incapable of appreciating the complexities of the case, at least they might reason, I go with the colored plaintiff lawyer against the evil racist non-diverse defense lawyer.
This judge needs a kick in the nuts. It seems like he is using his power to approve the lawyer for the class to push his on agenda, which is reprehensible.
‘Minority’ = ‘Black’?
Fuck that, I’m not properly represented unless there’s a Vietnamese transexual somewhere in the mix.
I should have said "the judge becomes the agent through which the impression is propagated. I agree with you it’s not the judge himself, really.
I’m nervous that delving into this too far would unfairly distract the thread. And in any case I don’t have a pat answer, since defining “diversity” is such an impossible task. In general I’d like to see quotas put forth for groups which have been clearly institutionally discriminated against in the past. So for instance, in my field of medicine (and law as well, for that matter), I’m OK with the current severe lowering of standards in order to admit more black candidates, even if those candidates have been exposed to similar preparatory curriculae (and have therefore had similar opportunity). If we didn’t do that, we’d have almost no black physicians at all.