SA Fired from Skadden Forum

[Barack O'Drama]

http://abovethelaw.com/2017/06/summer-a ... t-remarks/

[pancakes3]

Was it racism-racism or aspie-racism? This gossip may make him less hirable, and if it's the latter, it may not be fair.

No one here knows yet. I've read this thread so just to sum up for you and anyone else just joining: A male summer associate at Skadden was fired. No one knows why. But the speculation, with no direct proof or even specifics, is that that it was because of a racist comment. There's also some weirdos wanting to know whether he's gay enough for them, but that appears to be irrelevant and peeping Tom-ish.

which is why...

I'm sure whatever reputational harm borne out of TLS gossip is outweighed by the fact that he got fired from his SA

...is just so very wrong.

I'm sure whatever difference in hirability borne out of whether he was being racist-racist or aspie-racist is outweighed by the decrease in hirability by the very fact that he was fired in the first place.

[runinthefront]

I'm sure whatever difference in hirability borne out of whether he was being racist-racist or aspie-racist is outweighed by the decrease in hirability by the very fact that he was fired in the first place.

allegations so far:

- sexual harasser
- sexual assaulter
- racist-racist vs. "aspie racist?"
- fake LGBT member
- "various multitudes of issues on top of racist remark"

But tell us more about how none of these allegations won't affect the SA's future marketability, notwithstanding the fact that the student has been fired from Skadden for at least one (currently speculative) reason.

[1styearlateral]

Although I don't see how aspie-racism is okay?

Because "aspie-racism" would at least be unintentional. Examples include legitimate ignorance or trying to impress her/other associates by being "funny" (think Michael Scott).

Yeah, but like I said, that's not a thing. It's unfair to actual aspies. There isn't any "legitimate" ignorance and trying to be funny by making a racist comment isn't an excuse either.

I get that people are probably trying to get at a distinction between malicious "intentional" racism and an example of really really bad judgment, but in terms of effect on the listener (and employability) I don't think that makes any difference.

It's not like only people who say something racist with the intent to harm are "real" racists and everyone else should get a pass because it's not "really" racism if you don't "mean it that way." A problematic comment is a problematic comment (but it's also not a judgment on someone's soul; it's just one action over someone's life and whether they should get fired for it would, I think, depend on a lot of factors).

I agree. Wasn't trying to excuse the behavior and in terms of accountability, I think both scenarios make the speaker equally accountable for their action. One shouldn't be punished more than the other. But I do think that there is a different tone in firing someone who made a racist remark without regard to the listener as opposed to where the speaker made a malicious statement. If this SA made the statement by trying to be funny, then he should be fired for his stupidity and poor judgment, not because he should be perceived as an actual racist or a mean-spirited person.

[pancakes3]

I'm sure whatever difference in hirability borne out of whether he was being racist-racist or aspie-racist is outweighed by the decrease in hirability by the very fact that he was fired in the first place.

allegations so far:

- sexual harasser
- sexual assaulter
- racist-racist vs. "aspie racist?"
- fake LGBT member
- "various multitudes of issues on top of racist remark"

But tell us more about how none of these allegations won't affect the SA's future marketability, notwithstanding the fact that the student has been fired from Skadden for at least one (currently speculative) reason.

I honestly have no idea what the fuck you're talking about any more.

The guy got fired. Period. For future marketability, the difference as to why he got fired is a secondary issue to the primary fact that he got fired. I'm not saying the severity of why he got fired *doesn't* have an impact, but for you to take the position that TLS/ATL is somehow torpedoing an otherwise salvageable professional reputation is stupid.

put it this way, i'm sure if the guy had 1 wish, it would be to reinstate his SA rather than scrubbing the internet clean of the speculation of why he's fired.

[LurkerTurnedMember]

Was it racism-racism or aspie-racism? This gossip may make him less hirable, and if it's the latter, it may not be fair.

No one here knows yet. I've read this thread so just to sum up for you and anyone else just joining: A male summer associate at Skadden was fired. No one knows why. But the speculation, with no direct proof or even specifics, is that that it was because of a racist comment. There's also some weirdos wanting to know whether he's gay enough for them, but that appears to be irrelevant and peeping Tom-ish.

There's been more than that. Are you the Skadden damage control crew? There's been fairly specific allegations as to what the racist comment was about. Your idiotic comment notwithstanding, passing off as gay to get a diversity boost is also a pretty bad allegation.

Anyway, ATL has now picked up on this, and details will come out eventually. I remember a similar discussion taking place last year over the Skadden slapper and people getting all upset that everyone was just speculating. Same thing with the Latham SA two years ago. Both turned out pretty much the way they were described. The biglaw SA community is small enough that most people at T14 know someone in every summer class, so I wouldn't be as dismissive as some of the people in this thread have been.

Didn't the ATL article on the slapper get edited with a disclaimer that ATL didn't get it right originally? And there were multiple stories/versions ATL couldn't even figure out which one was true. So I'm not sure how it "turned out pretty much" how it was described, unless an article merely summing up speculation can validate for you a TLS thread full of that speculation.

I'm not excusing any action here if true pr defending someone i don't even know. All I'm sayin is I'm bi. And I can't stand when people try to police sexuality, whether legally or socially. If someone says they're gay, bi, lesbian, straight, or whatever other sexuality they are, they are that. Period. No discussion. You don't have the right or any authority to determine whether they are "really" gay. Stop trying to be a peeping Tom. I've had people ask me socially after realizing I'm bi for the men-women ratio of my sexual partners to confirm I'm bi and one even asked me to describe the people I've had sex with because they wanted to confirm the ratio was true. putting aside how at the very least this type of inquiry, even in the form of doubting someone's identification, is socially unacceptable (and for some reason people still can't see that), is that what you plan to do? Ask about sexual partners? Ohhh let me guess. You're gonna take his lgbt card cause he doesn't like Glee?

[A. Nony Mouse]

It's one thing for other SAs to police sexuality and consider someone not gay enough - that is not appropriate at all. But it's another for someone actually to say "I'm not gay, I just pretended to be to get a job." I don't think there's anything wrong with criticizing the latter because that's not about sexuality, that's about lying. And it's been alleged that the SA here did the latter. (But I fully admit nothing here has been confirmed so it may be the former disguised as the latter, and no one should be relying on any of this stuff until/unless anything is confirmed.)

[ernie]

I'm not excusing any action here if true pr defending someone i don't even know. All I'm sayin is I'm bi. And I can't stand when people try to police sexuality, whether legally or socially. If someone says they're gay, bi, lesbian, straight, or whatever other sexuality they are, they are that. Period. No discussion. You don't have the right or any authority to determine whether they are "really" gay. Stop trying to be a peeping Tom. I've had people ask me socially after realizing I'm bi for the men-women ratio of my sexual partners to confirm I'm bi and one even asked me to describe the people I've had sex with because they wanted to confirm the ratio was true. putting aside how at the very least this type of inquiry, even in the form of doubting someone's identification, is socially unacceptable (and for some reason people still can't see that), is that what you plan to do? Ask about sexual partners? Ohhh let me guess. You're gonna take his lgbt card cause he doesn't like Glee?

Thank you for saying this. I am also openly bisexual and am quite tired of invasive questioning and skepticism about my sexuality. In fact, in the past I have hesitated to include my affiliations with LGBT groups on my resume for precisely this reason.

[PvblivsScipio]

You guys really don't know anyone who lied or deliberately made their sexuality vague by using certain terms in hopes of getting a diversity bump? I know some jackasses that openly bragged about it.

[PeanutsNJam]

I'm not excusing any action here if true pr defending someone i don't even know. All I'm sayin is I'm bi. And I can't stand when people try to police sexuality, whether legally or socially. If someone says they're gay, bi, lesbian, straight, or whatever other sexuality they are, they are that. Period. No discussion. You don't have the right or any authority to determine whether they are "really" gay. Stop trying to be a peeping Tom. I've had people ask me socially after realizing I'm bi for the men-women ratio of my sexual partners to confirm I'm bi and one even asked me to describe the people I've had sex with because they wanted to confirm the ratio was true. putting aside how at the very least this type of inquiry, even in the form of doubting someone's identification, is socially unacceptable (and for some reason people still can't see that), is that what you plan to do? Ask about sexual partners? Ohhh let me guess. You're gonna take his lgbt card cause he doesn't like Glee?

Thank you for saying this. I am also openly bisexual and am quite tired of invasive questioning and skepticism about my sexuality. In fact, in the past I have hesitated to include my affiliations with LGBT groups on my resume for precisely this reason.

People aren't "policing" someone saying they're gay just because they care about that person's sexuality. To the extent a "diversity bump" exists for LGBT, it is objectively unfair to everyone to lie about your sexuality in order to get that bump. That's why people care whether the accused fired Skadden SA was "actually gay" or not, not whether he was gay vs bi for the sake of it.

[Mr. Blackacre]

I'm not excusing any action here if true pr defending someone i don't even know. All I'm sayin is I'm bi. And I can't stand when people try to police sexuality, whether legally or socially. If someone says they're gay, bi, lesbian, straight, or whatever other sexuality they are, they are that. Period. No discussion. You don't have the right or any authority to determine whether they are "really" gay. Stop trying to be a peeping Tom. I've had people ask me socially after realizing I'm bi for the men-women ratio of my sexual partners to confirm I'm bi and one even asked me to describe the people I've had sex with because they wanted to confirm the ratio was true. putting aside how at the very least this type of inquiry, even in the form of doubting someone's identification, is socially unacceptable (and for some reason people still can't see that), is that what you plan to do? Ask about sexual partners? Ohhh let me guess. You're gonna take his lgbt card cause he doesn't like Glee?

That's not what you said initially. You're going based off of your personal experience (which sucks, and I'm sorry people are assholes) and assuming people are similarly doubting this guy for no reason. It's very possible he just boasted that he had pretended to be gay for the diversity boost. Rpupkin will call this further baseless speculation, but I agree it would make sense from someone who is also willing to make openly racist remarks at firm events.

Serious question though - Have you faced that kind of questioning at firms? From either partners (which is terrible but wouldn't surprise me), associates, or SAs? I would hope that the kind of person who walks around asking other SAs to prove their sexuality is also the kind of person who doesn't get an offer.

[LurkerTurnedMember]

I'm not excusing any action here if true pr defending someone i don't even know. All I'm sayin is I'm bi. And I can't stand when people try to police sexuality, whether legally or socially. If someone says they're gay, bi, lesbian, straight, or whatever other sexuality they are, they are that. Period. No discussion. You don't have the right or any authority to determine whether they are "really" gay. Stop trying to be a peeping Tom. I've had people ask me socially after realizing I'm bi for the men-women ratio of my sexual partners to confirm I'm bi and one even asked me to describe the people I've had sex with because they wanted to confirm the ratio was true. putting aside how at the very least this type of inquiry, even in the form of doubting someone's identification, is socially unacceptable (and for some reason people still can't see that), is that what you plan to do? Ask about sexual partners? Ohhh let me guess. You're gonna take his lgbt card cause he doesn't like Glee?

That's not what you said initially. You're going based off of your personal experience (which sucks, and I'm sorry people are assholes) and assuming people are similarly doubting this guy for no reason. It's very possible he just boasted that he had pretended to be gay for the diversity boost. Rpupkin will call this further baseless speculation, but I agree it would make sense from someone who is also willing to make openly racist remarks at firm events.

Serious question though - Have you faced that kind of questioning at firms? From either partners (which is terrible but wouldn't surprise me), associates, or SAs? I would hope that the kind of person who walks around asking other SAs to prove their sexuality is also the kind of person who doesn't get an offer.

Not at firms because like one of the posters above I don't even put anything down that's lgbt related but I'm not going to deny my sexuality when asked. It never is at firms because I don't fit the stereotype of a gay/lesbian person so people just assume I'm straight.

And even if he said he lied that he was gay, he could very well been closeted, decided to come out for the sake of applications, and after realizing the consequences and how far his identification traveled, he freaked out and said he's straight. This isn't uncommon for people just coming out. Regardless, to go down the road of whether he lied, you need to necessarily police his sexuality. And I just wouldn't go there.

[Nebby]

Is it policing his sexuality if he brags about lying about it for a bump? Doesn't seem policing to me; seems like simply taking him at his word and that word indicates he's an asshole.

[ernie]

I'm not excusing any action here if true pr defending someone i don't even know. All I'm sayin is I'm bi. And I can't stand when people try to police sexuality, whether legally or socially. If someone says they're gay, bi, lesbian, straight, or whatever other sexuality they are, they are that. Period. No discussion. You don't have the right or any authority to determine whether they are "really" gay. Stop trying to be a peeping Tom. I've had people ask me socially after realizing I'm bi for the men-women ratio of my sexual partners to confirm I'm bi and one even asked me to describe the people I've had sex with because they wanted to confirm the ratio was true. putting aside how at the very least this type of inquiry, even in the form of doubting someone's identification, is socially unacceptable (and for some reason people still can't see that), is that what you plan to do? Ask about sexual partners? Ohhh let me guess. You're gonna take his lgbt card cause he doesn't like Glee?

That's not what you said initially. You're going based off of your personal experience (which sucks, and I'm sorry people are assholes) and assuming people are similarly doubting this guy for no reason. It's very possible he just boasted that he had pretended to be gay for the diversity boost. Rpupkin will call this further baseless speculation, but I agree it would make sense from someone who is also willing to make openly racist remarks at firm events.

Serious question though - Have you faced that kind of questioning at firms? From either partners (which is terrible but wouldn't surprise me), associates, or SAs? I would hope that the kind of person who walks around asking other SAs to prove their sexuality is also the kind of person who doesn't get an offer.

Outside of law, I have encountered this type of questioning regularly. Within law, it has been more subtle and thankfully infrequent, though still troublesome when it does occur. On a few occasions I have been asked questions that I thought were inappropriate, but not egregious. For example, when I mentioned a same-sex relationship, an attorney who knew that I was bisexual asked me if I "was gay now." I was taken aback by the question and felt quite uncomfortable.

[ernie]

Is it policing his sexuality if he brags about lying about it for a bump? Doesn't seem policing to me; seems like simply taking him at his word and that word indicates he's an asshole.

Fair enough, and I've been mainly directing my rant towards Nagster5's comment above.

[pancakes3]

You guys really don't know anyone who lied or deliberately made their sexuality vague by using certain terms in hopes of getting a diversity bump? I know some jackasses that openly bragged about it.

that's really fucked up.

[Phil Brooks]

I'm not excusing any action here if true pr defending someone i don't even know. All I'm sayin is I'm bi. And I can't stand when people try to police sexuality, whether legally or socially. If someone says they're gay, bi, lesbian, straight, or whatever other sexuality they are, they are that. Period. No discussion. You don't have the right or any authority to determine whether they are "really" gay. Stop trying to be a peeping Tom. I've had people ask me socially after realizing I'm bi for the men-women ratio of my sexual partners to confirm I'm bi and one even asked me to describe the people I've had sex with because they wanted to confirm the ratio was true. putting aside how at the very least this type of inquiry, even in the form of doubting someone's identification, is socially unacceptable (and for some reason people still can't see that), is that what you plan to do? Ask about sexual partners? Ohhh let me guess. You're gonna take his lgbt card cause he doesn't like Glee?

Thank you for saying this. I am also openly bisexual and am quite tired of invasive questioning and skepticism about my sexuality. In fact, in the past I have hesitated to include my affiliations with LGBT groups on my resume for precisely this reason.

People aren't "policing" someone saying they're gay just because they care about that person's sexuality. To the extent a "diversity bump" exists for LGBT, it is objectively unfair to everyone to lie about your sexuality in order to get that bump. That's why people care whether the accused fired Skadden SA was "actually gay" or not, not whether he was gay vs bi for the sake of it.

Whether or not it's unfair to everyone, it's certainly unfair to people who actually are LGBT and face unique challenges that straight people don't face. Someone who lies about their sexual orientation in order to get a diversity bump is getting for free what actual LGBT people have to suffer to get.

[Nagster5]

Is it policing his sexuality if he brags about lying about it for a bump? Doesn't seem policing to me; seems like simply taking him at his word and that word indicates he's an asshole.

Fair enough, and I've been mainly directing my rant towards Nagster5's comment above.

I think it was pretty clear I was talking about non-LGBT people who lie to get a bump. If you're bi, you're LGBT, so that wouldn't apply at all to what I was talking about. I wasn't suggesting we should inquire about or doubt people's claimed sexuality, just wondering how much of firms' LGBT diversity recruiting efforts are actually just helping assholes. People lie about their background, SES, race, etc. to get admissions bumps, although obviously there's a lot more post-application contact in the employment context making this type of thing more risky. I would imagine it's not common, but judging by people's reactions on here it's probably more common than people think.

[ernie]

I think it was pretty clear I was talking about non-LGBT people who lie to get a bump. If you're bi, you're LGBT, so that wouldn't apply at all to what I was talking about. I wasn't suggesting we should inquire about or doubt people's claimed sexuality, just wondering how much of firms' LGBT diversity recruiting efforts are actually just helping assholes. People lie about their background, SES, race, etc. to get admissions bumps, although obviously there's a lot more post-application contact in the employment context making this type of thing more risky. I would imagine it's not common, but judging by people's reactions on here it's probably more common than people think.

To be frank, I think it is completely uncommon, and not a real issue. At the least, I'm certainly not convinced it is a real issue by anecdata offered by anonymous strangers on the internet. And I am quite certain that some people who are bisexual choose not to disclose rather than to disclose, for the reasons discussed in my above posts.

[ernie]

To put a finer point on it, I completely agree that it's awful for a straight person to pretend that they're LGBT for purposes of getting a job. But I also hope that people don't take away from this thread that fake LGBT SAs is a real issue, and thus view them suspiciously/scrutinize them. Because, as someone who has been on the receiving end of that treatment, it's hurtful.

[gatorade_potato]

I'm not excusing any action here if true pr defending someone i don't even know. All I'm sayin is I'm bi. And I can't stand when people try to police sexuality, whether legally or socially. If someone says they're gay, bi, lesbian, straight, or whatever other sexuality they are, they are that. Period. No discussion. You don't have the right or any authority to determine whether they are "really" gay. Stop trying to be a peeping Tom. I've had people ask me socially after realizing I'm bi for the men-women ratio of my sexual partners to confirm I'm bi and one even asked me to describe the people I've had sex with because they wanted to confirm the ratio was true. putting aside how at the very least this type of inquiry, even in the form of doubting someone's identification, is socially unacceptable (and for some reason people still can't see that), is that what you plan to do? Ask about sexual partners? Ohhh let me guess. You're gonna take his lgbt card cause he doesn't like Glee?

That's not what you said initially. You're going based off of your personal experience (which sucks, and I'm sorry people are assholes) and assuming people are similarly doubting this guy for no reason. It's very possible he just boasted that he had pretended to be gay for the diversity boost. Rpupkin will call this further baseless speculation, but I agree it would make sense from someone who is also willing to make openly racist remarks at firm events.

Serious question though - Have you faced that kind of questioning at firms? From either partners (which is terrible but wouldn't surprise me), associates, or SAs? I would hope that the kind of person who walks around asking other SAs to prove their sexuality is also the kind of person who doesn't get an offer.

Not at firms because like one of the posters above I don't even put anything down that's lgbt related but I'm not going to deny my sexuality when asked. It never is at firms because I don't fit the stereotype of a gay/lesbian person so people just assume I'm straight.

And even if he said he lied that he was gay, he could very well been closeted, decided to come out for the sake of applications, and after realizing the consequences and how far his identification traveled, he freaked out and said he's straight. This isn't uncommon for people just coming out. Regardless, to go down the road of whether he lied, you need to necessarily police his sexuality. And I just wouldn't go there.

How does this argument hold any water considering the separate allegations that he sent sexually harassing texts/messages to female Skadden colleagues and also openly talked about how he lied (how actively is another question) about being gay in order to get a boost at OCI? That is straight-up BS no matter which way you swing it.

[A. Nony Mouse]

To put a finer point on it, I completely agree that it's awful for a straight person to pretend that they're LGBT for purposes of getting a job. But I also hope that people don't take away from this thread that fake LGBT SAs is a real issue, and thus view them suspiciously/scrutinize them. Because, as someone who has been on the receiving end of that treatment, it's hurtful.

Yes, completely agree with this.

[Nagster5]

To put a finer point on it, I completely agree that it's awful for a straight person to pretend that they're LGBT for purposes of getting a job. But I also hope that people don't take away from this thread that fake LGBT SAs is a real issue, and thus view them suspiciously/scrutinize them. Because, as someone who has been on the receiving end of that treatment, it's hurtful.

Recognizing it's a thing that happens (I'm not sure what qualifies something as a "real issue") and thinking we should therefore question people about it or doubt people are two completely different things. And thinking that people who are in fact lying about being LGBT for their own gain, and to the detriment of actual LGBT people, should be held in low esteem seems pretty obvious to me. Pretending it doesn't happen won't make ignorant/stupid people go away, it just makes it seem like you're too naive to conceive of a person who would tell an undetectable lie when the potential benefits are considerable.

[ernie]

To put a finer point on it, I completely agree that it's awful for a straight person to pretend that they're LGBT for purposes of getting a job. But I also hope that people don't take away from this thread that fake LGBT SAs is a real issue, and thus view them suspiciously/scrutinize them. Because, as someone who has been on the receiving end of that treatment, it's hurtful.

Recognizing it's a thing that happens (I'm not sure what qualifies something as a "real issue") and thinking we should therefore question people about it or doubt people are two completely different things. And thinking that people who are in fact lying about being LGBT for their own gain, and to the detriment of actual LGBT people, should be held in low esteem seems pretty obvious to me. Pretending it doesn't happen won't make ignorant/stupid people go away, it just makes it seem like you're too naive to conceive of a person who would tell an undetectable lie when the potential benefits are considerable.

Unsurprisingly, you've completely missed my point (and your JUST ASKING QUESTIONS shtick is getting tiresome).

[ernie]

I wonder what percent of LGBT diversity hires are really straight liars.

LJFL.