GLBT is a URM Forum

[ThomasMN]

Both my parents don't have college degrees; I had a "broken home" for my later teenage years - horrible HS gpa, I barely graduated; I was an Army brat growing up and had to attend multiple schools growing up; I was beaten up and ostracized when I moved to Minnesota as I was the closest thing my school had to someone "different;" I spent seven years in the Army as an infantryman - multiple overseas tours. I took ESL classes K - second grade. Guess what, I don't expect to have anything close to "URM" status when I apply to law school as I'm a white male.

I can understand the argument from a LGBT perspective, but I think that the URM status is mostly there to help disadvantaged ethnic groups. When you can show me the LGBT testing gap or the rampant poverty afflicting homosexuals then I think there is a good argument for it. That being said, I am rather sure that admission deans looking to have a diverse class will certainly look to make sure that their incoming class has a few LGBT individuals. That being said, I know a lot of openly gay people in law school. I don't see an issue in the same way that you do with African-Americans and Mexican-Americans.

[MrPapagiorgio]

Somewhere OP is eating cheetos and laughing at us.

[DoubleChecks]

Right. If you shove your sexual orientation in somebody's face, then deal with the consequences.

How inconsiderate of me to shove it in their face? I figured that discussing spousal/partnership benefits and the applicability of paternity leave for adoptive children with a firm's HR department was reasonable, but apparently I'm just flouting my flamingness. GTFO.

lol while i agree with you, technically RP was talking about "during hiring" in whether bias/prejudice would negatively impact that; those sorts of questions^ sound more appropriate after you've already gotten an offer (from what ive been told)? or am i wrong?

and before someone says, "but i bring my partner to social events before receiving a final offer!" and "why should i dance around reality to not get slammed by someone else's prejudice?!" ... i agree, that will happen and that's not fair. but overall it'd prob happen noticeably less than a race URM situation where it is your skin color. i think that's what RP is trying to get at for the most part.

How is it not an appropriate thing to bring up during hiring? If you were black would you want to start your career at a racist firm? The same goes for gays, we need to evaluate firms to determine whether they are LGBT friendly, and if it turns out they aren't and that costs me a job offer, I suppose that is me being unreasonable and bringing it upon myself for trying to find a tolerable work environment?

The first follow up question I plan on asking during OCI is how the LGBT environment is at the firm.

fair, lol but refer to the second statement in my above comment as i meant to precede your response with that answer

and sry i meant THOSE sorts of questions specifically about benefits would be best asked after receiving an offer, not questions related to GLBT atmosphere (which by all means you should figure out if that is a primary concern of yours)

[paulinaporizkova]

because we're still rich and white

/thread

Tell that to the black trans female sex workers I had for clients last summer.

Well that's the point isn't it. The disadvantaged people within LGBT are usually URMs. Rich white gay people on the other hand really don't have that many problems. Trans people might be the only exception to this rule. Not sure if we have enough data to say whether they are underrepresented in the legal field though.

my opinion interpreted much less offensively

+2 points to you

[ThomasMN]

Right. If you shove your sexual orientation in somebody's face, then deal with the consequences.

How inconsiderate of me to shove it in their face? I figured that discussing spousal/partnership benefits and the applicability of paternity leave for adoptive children with a firm's HR department was reasonable, but apparently I'm just flouting my flamingness. GTFO.

+1 I don't think anyone would want to work in a firm that did not treat them like a human being, but then what firms do?

[Cupidity]

When you can show me the LGBT testing gap or the rampant poverty afflicting homosexuals then I think there is a good argument for it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... erty_N.htm

Try using Google. Poverty, education, testing, physical abuse, health, suicide, you name it. Statistically you are better off being black than gay for everything but arrest percentage.

[ThomasMN]

When you can show me the LGBT testing gap or the rampant poverty afflicting homosexuals then I think there is a good argument for it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... erty_N.htm

Try using Google. Poverty, education, testing, physical abuse, health, suicide, you name it. Statistically you are better off being black than gay for everything but arrest percentage.

I would not necessarily say that has something to do with our - American - society oppressing lesbians, but the fact that our system is generally rather sexist. Economically, two lesbian women together - especially ones with kids - are pretty much in the same boat as a couple of single mothers. I can tell you from experience, single women - especially mothers - are really failed by our system. That being said, I wouldn't doubt that their sexual orientation makes life just a little more difficult.

[ResolutePear]

How inconsiderate of me to shove it in their face? I figured that discussing spousal/partnership benefits and the applicability of paternity leave for adoptive children with a firm's HR department was reasonable, but apparently I'm just flouting my flamingness. GTFO.

lol while i agree with you, technically RP was talking about "during hiring" in whether bias/prejudice would negatively impact that; those sorts of questions^ sound more appropriate after you've already gotten an offer (from what ive been told)? or am i wrong?

and before someone says, "but i bring my partner to social events before receiving a final offer!" and "why should i dance around reality to not get slammed by someone else's prejudice?!" ... i agree, that will happen and that's not fair. but overall it'd prob happen noticeably less than a race URM situation where it is your skin color. i think that's what RP is trying to get at for the most part.

How is it not an appropriate thing to bring up during hiring? If you were black would you want to start your career at a racist firm? The same goes for gays, we need to evaluate firms to determine whether they are LGBT friendly, and if it turns out they aren't and that costs me a job offer, I suppose that is me being unreasonable and bringing it upon myself for trying to find a tolerable work environment?

The first follow up question I plan on asking during OCI is how the LGBT environment is at the firm.

fair, lol but refer to the second statement in my above comment as i meant to precede your response with that answer

and sry i meant THOSE sorts of questions specifically about benefits would be best asked after receiving an offer, not questions related to GLBT atmosphere (which by all means you should figure out if that is a primary concern of yours)

DC's got it right - but to add on that.. there's a way to go about it.

"How's maternity leave for adoptive children" isn't the same as saying, "I'm gay. How's the materinity leave for adoptive children?".. or..

"Can you share a breakdown of demographics for those working at your firm?" versus.. "How's the LGBT atmosphere?"

If there is a firm that is anti-LGBT, then what does it matter if LGBT's were qualified as a URM or not? They just wouldn't want to work there? I'm not sure at what you're trying to get at.

[paulinaporizkova]

When you can show me the LGBT testing gap or the rampant poverty afflicting homosexuals then I think there is a good argument for it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... erty_N.htm

Try using Google. Poverty, education, testing, physical abuse, health, suicide, you name it. Statistically you are better off being black than gay for everything but arrest percentage.

I would not necessarily say that has something to do with our - American - society oppressing lesbians, but the fact that our system is generally rather sexist. Economically, two lesbian women together - especially ones with kids - are pretty much in the same boat as a couple of single mothers. I can tell you from experience, single women - especially mothers - are really failed by our system. That being said, I wouldn't doubt that their sexual orientation makes life just a little more difficult.

this is kinda true. sometimes i wish i were a gay boy instead.....with ovaries and long hair. it's a twisted fantasy

[ResolutePear]

When you can show me the LGBT testing gap or the rampant poverty afflicting homosexuals then I think there is a good argument for it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... erty_N.htm

Try using Google. Poverty, education, testing, physical abuse, health, suicide, you name it. Statistically you are better off being black than gay for everything but arrest percentage.

Did white people send LGBT's to the cotton fields? Granted, there's Hardwick, but there's also Dred Scott, Ex Parte Yarborough, US v. Reese, among others.

The difference here is de facto vs de jure, in a systematic fashion.

[johnnyutah]

I think that the URM status is mostly there to help disadvantaged ethnic groups.

It is illegal for law schools to use URM status for this purpose.

[ThomasMN]

I think that the URM status is mostly there to help disadvantaged ethnic groups.

It is illegal for law schools to use URM status for this purpose.

Its illegal for them to state they are doing it for that purpose.

[johnnyutah]

I think that the URM status is mostly there to help disadvantaged ethnic groups.

It is illegal for law schools to use URM status for this purpose.

Its illegal for them to state they are doing it for that purpose.

Actually, that is exactly backward. They can state whatever they like as long as they don't use URM status in that way.

[shoeshine]

Not sure if it should or should not be but it would be hard to prove you were or were not.

For instance, half the people on this site would claim to be gay if they thought it gave them a shot at HYS. (myself included)

[ThomasMN]

I think that the URM status is mostly there to help disadvantaged ethnic groups.

It is illegal for law schools to use URM status for this purpose.

Its illegal for them to state they are doing it for that purpose.

Actually, that is exactly backward. They can state whatever they like as long as they don't use URM status in that way.

I think you missed some of my sarcasm. You have to "prove" that they are using the status in one way or another. The fact is that being a URM is a boost to get into law school and most of the groups that get a boost are ones that are disadvantaged ethnic groups.

[monarchylover]

When you can show me the LGBT testing gap or the rampant poverty afflicting homosexuals then I think there is a good argument for it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... erty_N.htm

Try using Google. Poverty, education, testing, physical abuse, health, suicide, you name it. Statistically you are better off being black than gay for everything but arrest percentage.

Did white people send LGBT's to the cotton fields? Granted, there's Hardwick, but there's also Dred Scott, Ex Parte Yarborough, US v. Reese, among others.

The difference here is de facto vs de jure, in a systematic fashion.

No back in the cotton field days they just killed them or mutilated their genitals or tied them to a horse by their balls and dragged through the street or they put them in insane asylums... Rich gay white males who have been thrown out of their homes with no money and cannot qualify for any financial aid have it harder sorry especially excommunicated Mormons. Try being homeless in a society that you don't "qualify" to be homeless and in a community that veiws gay people like sex offenders...

[Cupidity]

When you can show me the LGBT testing gap or the rampant poverty afflicting homosexuals then I think there is a good argument for it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... erty_N.htm

Try using Google. Poverty, education, testing, physical abuse, health, suicide, you name it. Statistically you are better off being black than gay for everything but arrest percentage.

Did white people send LGBT's to the cotton fields? Granted, there's Hardwick, but there's also Dred Scott, Ex Parte Yarborough, US v. Reese, among others.

The difference here is de facto vs de jure, in a systematic fashion.

No back in the cotton field days they just killed them or mutilated their genitals or tied them to a horse by their balls and dragged through the street or they put them in insane asylums... Rich gay white males who have been thrown out of their homes with no money and cannot qualify for any financial aid have it harder sorry especially excommunicated Mormons. Try being homeless in a society that you don't "qualify" to be homeless and in a community that veiws gay people like sex offenders...

People on this site don't seem to get it.

[ResolutePear]

When you can show me the LGBT testing gap or the rampant poverty afflicting homosexuals then I think there is a good argument for it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... erty_N.htm

Try using Google. Poverty, education, testing, physical abuse, health, suicide, you name it. Statistically you are better off being black than gay for everything but arrest percentage.

Did white people send LGBT's to the cotton fields? Granted, there's Hardwick, but there's also Dred Scott, Ex Parte Yarborough, US v. Reese, among others.

The difference here is de facto vs de jure, in a systematic fashion.

No back in the cotton field days they just killed them or mutilated their genitals or tied them to a horse by their balls and dragged through the street or they put them in insane asylums... Rich gay white males who have been thrown out of their homes with no money and cannot qualify for any financial aid have it harder sorry especially excommunicated Mormons. Try being homeless in a society that you don't "qualify" to be homeless and in a community that veiws gay people like sex offenders...

I won't argue with you over my view on a topic that is polarized anyways. Next time there's a gay rights case on the federal docket, write an amicus brief and get sexual orientation suspect-class status.

[Cupidity]

Did you read the Holder memo regarding DOMA? We're practically there.

[whirledpeas86]

No back in the cotton field days they just killed them or mutilated their genitals or tied them to a horse by their balls and dragged through the street or they put them in insane asylums... Rich gay white males who have been thrown out of their homes with no money and cannot qualify for any financial aid have it harder sorry especially excommunicated Mormons. Try being homeless in a society that you don't "qualify" to be homeless and in a community that veiws gay people like sex offenders...

Setting aside some of the other issues with this argument, can we Please stop talking about whose suffering has been worse or harder? There is no hierarchy of oppression, and it's incredibly counterproductive to talk about it like there is. It's impossible to say that this group has it worse than that group or vice versa since no two groups have been oppressed or subjugated in the exact same way; it's all different and unique to the group, the time, and the place. I think trying to qualify one group as having it better or worse goes a long way towards creating unnecessary schisms between minority groups, ignores the fact that there are a number of people that have membership in more than one minority group (the interactional nature of all of our social identities), and can be called counter-productive at best.

Love,

A radical queer black woman

PS. Some stuff to read:

http://ws405.blogspot.com/2011/01/audre-lorde.html

http://civicmatters.blogs.brynmawr.edu/ ... l-justice/

--LinkRemoved--

http://xxcommunicator.blogspot.com/2006 ... ssion.html

[ResolutePear]

No back in the cotton field days they just killed them or mutilated their genitals or tied them to a horse by their balls and dragged through the street or they put them in insane asylums... Rich gay white males who have been thrown out of their homes with no money and cannot qualify for any financial aid have it harder sorry especially excommunicated Mormons. Try being homeless in a society that you don't "qualify" to be homeless and in a community that veiws gay people like sex offenders...

Setting aside some of the other issues with this argument, can we Please stop talking about whose suffering has been worse or harder? There is no hierarchy of oppression, and it's incredibly counterproductive to talk about it like there is. It's impossible to say that this group has it worse than that group or vice versa since no two groups have been oppressed or subjugated in the exact same way; it's all different and unique to the group, the time, and the place. I think trying to qualify one group as having it better or worse goes a long way towards creating unnecessary schisms between minority groups, ignores the fact that there are a number of people that have membership in more than one minority group (the interactional nature of all of our social identities), and can be called counter-productive at best.

Love,

A radical queer black woman

PS. Some stuff to read:

http://ws405.blogspot.com/2011/01/audre-lorde.html

http://civicmatters.blogs.brynmawr.edu/ ... l-justice/

--LinkRemoved--

http://xxcommunicator.blogspot.com/2006 ... ssion.html

YOU'RE A RADICAL? *jaw drops*

[whirledpeas86]

YOU'RE A RADICAL? *jaw drops*

You're right; I probably should have just called myself a black dyke and then dropped the mic and walked away. Noted for next time.

[ResolutePear]

YOU'RE A RADICAL? *jaw drops*

You're right; I probably should have just called myself a black dyke and then dropped the mic and walked away. Noted for next time.

Wanda Sykes, is that you?

I love Wanda Sykes's humor.

[whirledpeas86]

YOU'RE A RADICAL? *jaw drops*

You're right; I probably should have just called myself a black dyke and then dropped the mic and walked away. Noted for next time.

Wanda Sykes, is that you?

I love Wanda Sykes's humor.

Maybe, though I'd love to say that Audre Lorde is more accurate.

[BLDGbloc]

No back in the cotton field days they just killed them or mutilated their genitals or tied them to a horse by their balls and dragged through the street or they put them in insane asylums... Rich gay white males who have been thrown out of their homes with no money and cannot qualify for any financial aid have it harder sorry especially excommunicated Mormons. Try being homeless in a society that you don't "qualify" to be homeless and in a community that veiws gay people like sex offenders...

Setting aside some of the other issues with this argument, can we Please stop talking about whose suffering has been worse or harder? There is no hierarchy of oppression, and it's incredibly counterproductive to talk about it like there is. It's impossible to say that this group has it worse than that group or vice versa since no two groups have been oppressed or subjugated in the exact same way; it's all different and unique to the group, the time, and the place. I think trying to qualify one group as having it better or worse goes a long way towards creating unnecessary schisms between minority groups, ignores the fact that there are a number of people that have membership in more than one minority group (the interactional nature of all of our social identities), and can be called counter-productive at best.

Love,

A radical queer black woman

Amen, sister!