Phone call with attorney... signal urm?? Forum

[danquayle]

using race to help you out. classy

It's a warzone out there man. Use what you got. You can hate the system while respecting a person's prerogative to max their outcome in that system. Would you hate on somebody who had a well connected lawyer uncle for leveraging that because its "unfair"?

Its total fair game to look for ways to seek commonality with the person you're talking to. This isn't all that different than somebody saying, "oh you went to XYZ school, so did I!" Except a lot more so.

Just don't lead with it, otherwise it might come off as pandering. I wouldn't mention anything AA related until midway through the conversation unless it opens up organically. Someone said ask about AA organizations in the area where the guy works could work. You could also ask which firms or companies have well designed diversity programs. Nearly every firm does and does so prominently, so its certainly not an odd thing to bring up. Dude knows you're on this call for career advice, and dude knows that there are programs out there specifically designed to help URMs.

I wouldn't mention "pushback" or resistance or anything negative though. He might take offense to that, and really you should always try to frame things positively anyway.

[seagan823]

BTW, I'm not saying all URMs are less intelligent-- there are a few in my class who are near the top.

Oh really, bro? What would your assumption have been if there were no URMs near the top of your class? Thank you for providing everyone with evidence that URMs are capable of academic success.

My assumption would have been the same-- that URMs who get into law school with lower LSAT scores are less likely to succeed against their peers, both non-URM and URM, with higher LSAT scores. Read Sander's Stanford Law Review article on the results of African American affirmative action in law school.

I don't know why you are so offended. An admissions policy leads to objectively dumber people being accepted into school, dumber people generally do not do as well in school, most of a particular group are beneficiaries of said policy. It seems like a logical assumption that most of a particular group will not do as well in school.

I wasn't trying to debate either the merits or results of AA. What I was trying to call attention to is the way in which you justified your assertion that all URMs are not less intelligent by citing the placement of a few people in a law school class. Justifying the assertion that not all URMs are less intelligent is unnecessary, as any enlightened person knows that race, in and of itself, has nothing to do with academic ability. Whether or not there are a few high performing URM law students or not has no bearing on that fact. To imply that we need that justification implies there is reason to question the intelligence of URMs.

I know that wasn't your intent at all, and clearly you were trying to discuss how a person's knowledge of AA informs assumptions they make about URMs, as well as the frustration some non-URMs feel when they feel they got passed up because of AA policies. I don't want to comment on the validity, or lack thereof, of those assumptions or concerns.

All I was trying to say is to be conscious of how your words come across. Admittedly, I did it in an unnecessarily incendiary way.

[Ruluo]

BTW, I'm not saying all URMs are less intelligent-- there are a few in my class who are near the top.

Oh really, bro? What would your assumption have been if there were no URMs near the top of your class? Thank you for providing everyone with evidence that URMs are capable of academic success.

My assumption would have been the same-- that URMs who get into law school with lower LSAT scores are less likely to succeed against their peers, both non-URM and URM, with higher LSAT scores. Read Sander's Stanford Law Review article on the results of African American affirmative action in law school.

I don't know why you are so offended. An admissions policy leads to objectively dumber people being accepted into school, dumber people generally do not do as well in school, most of a particular group are beneficiaries of said policy. It seems like a logical assumption that most of a particular group will not do as well in school.

I wasn't trying to debate either the merits or results of AA. What I was trying to call attention to is the way in which you justified your assertion that all URMs are not less intelligent by citing the placement of a few people in a law school class. Justifying the assertion that not all URMs are less intelligent is unnecessary, as any enlightened person knows that race, in and of itself, has nothing to do with academic ability. Whether or not there are a few high performing URM law students or not has no bearing on that fact. To imply that we need that justification implies there is reason to question the intelligence of URMs.

I know that wasn't your intent at all, and clearly you were trying to discuss how a person's knowledge of AA informs assumptions they make about URMs, as well as the frustration some non-URMs feel when they feel they got passed up because of AA policies. I don't want to comment on the validity, or lack thereof, of those assumptions or concerns.

All I was trying to say is to be conscious of how your words come across. Admittedly, I did it in an unnecessarily incendiary way.

The potential merits of AA aside (I understand this is not the appropriate place to discuss that), it's frustrating that you would make such a claim to the effect of calling unenlightened anyone who does not believe the case is closed on IQ distributions being identical among different "races."

Your statement is certainly more derogatory and unjustified than an unprejudiced assessment of available information that suggests the IQ distributions among races is likely not the same.

To your other point, LSAT actually does correlate highly with "g" (which is correlated highly with "life outcomes," so it's foolish to try to dismiss it as irrelevant). GPA is a different matter (likely still correlated but much, much less sound as a proxy), but it bothers me to no end when people hold up specious arguments to legitimate attempts at understanding and analysis--especially when those same people (as you did in your post) deride anyone who remains open minded or unconvinced of your point of view.

[VyingDestiny]

I have a suspicion you're female because of the way you asked the question, but if I'm wrong please correct me. Just something to note: I've observed that while black female attorneys are generally incredibly supportive of both black males and females, the men seem to be much more comfortable and willing to help other men. I only say this because it might help you target who you want to approach.

In my opinion, you should never be afraid to mention or approach the topic of race when speaking to someone of your own race, UNLESS you are in an interview situation. We face unique pressures in applying for and gaining positions, and if you're talking to another black person, they've been there and know that.

However, I would look out for canned, useless advice. I would not ask the question you put in the OP because, quite honestly, the responses I've gotten from asking dozens upon dozens of black attorneys that same question have been virtually useless. I think it's more beneficial to try and cultivate a relationship with the person. So instead of asking about resistance in their career, I always try to ask about the paths they took to get where they are today. Typically, I might ask something like: "You're a black (wo)man who's made it, and I'm a black man who's trying to get there. What do you think I need to do to get where you are today?"

I THINK it's been more effective because it shows an admiration and appreciation for the person you're talking to, while also giving them something relatable to discuss (and who doesn't like talking about their accomplishments?) But, I could be wrong. Regardless, good luck with your phone call!