Davis Polk being sued by former minority associates Forum

[cisscum]

A

Bold take. Who cares about racist language? Just get over it lol

I'm half japanese and don't see anything racist about it. Seems like something UMC white people care about

Fuck off with being an arbiter of Asian-ness.

No u. asians trying to fit in with UMC whites are fine speaking for all of us so why can't I?

I don't care if you don't find it offensive. But you can fuck right off (and go fuck yourself) for insinuating if you find it racist then you must be a UMC white.

White or white adjacent (asians trying to be white). Actual asians don't care about this shit. Japan is a monoethnic state.

Asians in Asia don't care about racism in the United States or Asian-American issues? Wow, what an insight!

Wearing kimonos isn't an Asian American issue. Most asian americans probably don't even know what it is

[Anonymous User]

A

I am on a transaction with a client that says open kimono a lot. What is the big deal. People need to get a thicker skin, c'mon.

Bold take. Who cares about racist language? Just get over it lol

I'm half japanese and don't see anything racist about it. Seems like something UMC white people care about

Fuck off with being an arbiter of Asian-ness.

No u. asians trying to fit in with UMC whites are fine speaking for all of us so why can't I?

I don't care if you don't find it offensive. But you can fuck right off (and go fuck yourself) for insinuating if you find it racist then you must be a UMC white.

White or white adjacent (asians trying to be white). Actual asians don't care about this shit. Japan is a monoethnic state.

?? yikes please be a troll

[Anonymous User]

A

I'm half japanese and don't see anything racist about it. Seems like something UMC white people care about

Fuck off with being an arbiter of Asian-ness.

No u. asians trying to fit in with UMC whites are fine speaking for all of us so why can't I?

I don't care if you don't find it offensive. But you can fuck right off (and go fuck yourself) for insinuating if you find it racist then you must be a UMC white.

White or white adjacent (asians trying to be white). Actual asians don't care about this shit. Japan is a monoethnic state.

Asians in Asia don't care about racism in the United States or Asian-American issues? Wow, what an insight!

Wearing kimonos isn't an Asian American issue. Most asian americans probably don't even know what it is

Wait are you kidding? No one said the wearing of kimonos is the issue. And you can't seriously think that most Asian Americans don't know what a kimono is

[beepboopbeep]

It has been thirteen (13) zero (0) days since TLS got into weird racist arguments.

This update brought to you by Citizens For Improving the Quality of Your Lawl Skool Life. CFITQOYLSL is a very real charity organization. CFITQOYLSL motto: "Where's Admin Megan When You Need Her?"

[Anonymous User]

Why would you use a phrase that can obviously be read as having sexist and racist undertones when you don't have to?

I can see someone using it without realizing that and I wouldn't take much, if any, offense at it personally as an Asian American, but it's a fairly cringeworthy and sloppy way of communicating the point. Pretty emblematic of boomers too tonedeaf to recognize their own limitations.

[lolwutpar]

Why would you use a phrase that can obviously be read as having sexist and racist undertones when you don't have to?

I can see someone using it without realizing that and I wouldn't take much, if any, offense at it personally as an Asian American, but it's a fairly cringeworthy and sloppy way of communicating the point. Pretty emblematic of boomers too tonedeaf to recognize their own limitations.

That's exactly right - and the times I've mentioned it to people, they tend to not even realize it (people pick up jargon and reuse it without really thinking about it) and apologize. They stop saying it. It's a simple, effective way to change attitudes and nobody will be pissed off at you for telling them privately.

Imagine a partner saying that to a client who actually takes legitimate offense? They want to know that shit.

[Anonymous User]

Sorry if this counts as detracting from the topic, but I'm trying to follow the discussion(?) here and confused by some of the abbreviations.

Is "ppp" in the "Paul Weiss's ppp" the Paycheck Protection Program or does it stand for something else?

Also, what does "UMC" mean in "UMC White?" All I get on Google is United Methodist Church.

[Anonymous User]

I read the title of the thread and spent 1.4 seconds trying to figure out how you could be a "former minority."

LOOOL sorry

[JamezPhoenix]

Seems like the thread got realllllly off topic.

White people "White Knight" about racism so fast I wonder if they are camping out just waiting for their time to shine. It reminds me of how white elites use the term "latinx" even though 90% of Hispanic and Latin people find the term offensive/have never heard of it.

In undergrad I had a teacher and a few classmates spend half an hour telling me, a native American, why I should be offended by the Washington Redskins, Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians, etc. Again another issue where 90% of Native's either support the name or couldn't care less.

But by all means yall, keep white knighting! If anyone wants to talk about the ACTUAL topic though instead of white people telling PoC's they need to be offended I'm happy to listen!

[lolwutpar]

Seems like the thread got realllllly off topic.

White people "White Knight" about racism so fast I wonder if they are camping out just waiting for their time to shine. It reminds me of how white elites use the term "latinx" even though 90% of Hispanic and Latin people find the term offensive/have never heard of it.

In undergrad I had a teacher and a few classmates spend half an hour telling me, a native American, why I should be offended by the Washington Redskins, Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians, etc. Again another issue where 90% of Native's either support the name or couldn't care less.

But by all means yall, keep white knighting! If anyone wants to talk about the ACTUAL topic though instead of white people telling PoC's they need to be offended I'm happy to listen!

I'm Asian, so go fuck yourself.

[nixy]

And I know that this is going to sound horribly like “I have Native American friends,” but there are lots of Native Americans who do oppose mascot/team names.

[Anonymous User]

Seems like the thread got realllllly off topic.

White people "White Knight" about racism so fast I wonder if they are camping out just waiting for their time to shine. It reminds me of how white elites use the term "latinx" even though 90% of Hispanic and Latin people find the term offensive/have never heard of it.

In undergrad I had a teacher and a few classmates spend half an hour telling me, a native American, why I should be offended by the Washington Redskins, Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians, etc. Again another issue where 90% of Native's either support the name or couldn't care less.

But by all means yall, keep white knighting! If anyone wants to talk about the ACTUAL topic though instead of white people telling PoC's they need to be offended I'm happy to listen!

Obviously no one has a right to tell you, or anyone else, what they should take offense to. I'm also a minority, but I probably trend more like you in that I don't really get affected by things that some other people like me might, even if I understand why they do.

That doesn't mean other people are wrong for being offended or for asking people to refrain from what they consider to be offensive and hurtful behavior. It's ultimately a question of empathy. If there are alternative ways to communicate something that don't offend or hurt people, why wouldn't you use them? Is there something inherently gratifying in being offensive just because you can?

[Joachim2017]

Seems like the thread got realllllly off topic.

White people "White Knight" about racism so fast I wonder if they are camping out just waiting for their time to shine. It reminds me of how white elites use the term "latinx" even though 90% of Hispanic and Latin people find the term offensive/have never heard of it.

In undergrad I had a teacher and a few classmates spend half an hour telling me, a native American, why I should be offended by the Washington Redskins, Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians, etc. Again another issue where 90% of Native's either support the name or couldn't care less.

But by all means yall, keep white knighting! If anyone wants to talk about the ACTUAL topic though instead of white people telling PoC's they need to be offended I'm happy to listen!

Obviously no one has a right to tell you, or anyone else, what they should take offense to. I'm also a minority, but I probably trend more like you in that I don't really get affected by things that some other people like me might, even if I understand why they do.

That doesn't mean other people are wrong for being offended or for asking people to refrain from what they consider to be offensive and hurtful behavior. It's ultimately a question of empathy. If there are alternative ways to communicate something that don't offend or hurt people, why wouldn't you use them? Is there something inherently gratifying in being offensive just because you can?

But that's also a caricature (rather than a good-faith effort to understand) the opposing position. So long as we oversimplify and straw-man opposing viewpoints, we'll be stuck in this rut. The opposing viewpoint here is also not some inane "we have a right to free speech!" claim that's easily rebutted. It's that "don't say X because X will offend certain people" is a useless prescription if you wield it as widely and uncritically as people have begun to nowadays. It encroaches on our practices (speech, behavior, etc.) in a way that can reasonably strike us as not only unjustified, but also hypocritical.*

If in a liberal society the presumption is that we're free to do things unless they harm others, then the onus is on the self-proclaimed harmed parties who want to curtal others' practices to give a reasonable and consistent* argument about why X is harmful. And we're entitled to scrutinize that argument. Sometimes the argument is a good one; but not always, and not "because I said, so, and I belong to demographic Y." That's not an argument at all.

*For example: you can't claim both that a speaker's intention determines the meaning of X and that an audience's reception determines the meaning of X. If an athlete says that kneeling during the anthem does not = disrespect for the flag because that's not his intention, and you say the athlete's intention determines the action's meaning, then you have to be consistent: do you use the same principle for speech you hold offensive because you, the audience, find it to be offensive? If you're being consistent, you can't: you should defer to the speaker's intention in that situation too.

[nixy]

“Open the kimono” is a kinda weird and creepy metaphor. Why does it have to be linked to ethnicity? It seems to be alluding to opening the “exotic” and “foreign” “Orient.” Why does it imply looking at a person’s body under their clothes? It’s hard not to envision making a geisha open her kimono, even though I realize there isn’t anything literal about it alluding to sex. It still seems to tap into a kind of unpleasant sexualization of Asian women.

[JamezPhoenix]

Seems like the thread got realllllly off topic.

White people "White Knight" about racism so fast I wonder if they are camping out just waiting for their time to shine. It reminds me of how white elites use the term "latinx" even though 90% of Hispanic and Latin people find the term offensive/have never heard of it.

In undergrad I had a teacher and a few classmates spend half an hour telling me, a native American, why I should be offended by the Washington Redskins, Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians, etc. Again another issue where 90% of Native's either support the name or couldn't care less.

But by all means yall, keep white knighting! If anyone wants to talk about the ACTUAL topic though instead of white people telling PoC's they need to be offended I'm happy to listen!

Obviously no one has a right to tell you, or anyone else, what they should take offense to. I'm also a minority, but I probably trend more like you in that I don't really get affected by things that some other people like me might, even if I understand why they do.

That doesn't mean other people are wrong for being offended or for asking people to refrain from what they consider to be offensive and hurtful behavior. It's ultimately a question of empathy. If there are alternative ways to communicate something that don't offend or hurt people, why wouldn't you use them? Is there something inherently gratifying in being offensive just because you can?

But that's also a caricature (rather than a good-faith effort to understand) the opposing position. So long as we oversimplify and straw-man opposing viewpoints, we'll be stuck in this rut. The opposing viewpoint here is also not some inane "we have a right to free speech!" claim that's easily rebutted. It's that "don't say X because X will offend certain people" is a useless prescription if you wield it as widely and uncritically as people have begun to nowadays. It encroaches on our practices (speech, behavior, etc.) in a way that can reasonably strike us as not only unjustified, but also hypocritical.*

If in a liberal society the presumption is that we're free to do things unless they harm others, then the onus is on the self-proclaimed harmed parties who want to curtal others' practices to give a reasonable and consistent* argument about why X is harmful. And we're entitled to scrutinize that argument. Sometimes the argument is a good one; but not always, and not "because I said, so, and I belong to demographic Y." That's not an argument at all.

*For example: you can't claim both that a speaker's intention determines the meaning of X and that an audience's reception determines the meaning of X. If an athlete says that kneeling during the anthem does not = disrespect for the flag because that's not his intention, and you say the athlete's intention determines the action's meaning, then you have to be consistent: do you use the same principle for speech you hold offensive because you, the audience, find it to be offensive? If you're being consistent, you can't: you should defer to the speaker's intention in that situation too.

+1
To piggyback, we can all agree someone shouldn't go out of their way to cause harm. But we don't live in self contained boxes within a vacuum either. I look at the Atlanta Braves and it makes me proud to see my people represented. Some people look at it and get offended (if I am taking their opinion seriously, which...I have doubts...but I'll play ball). The fact that they want to remove the representation of a very marginalized group in society actually offends me. So now we have competing offenses. It is not so simple as if A person is offended we must collectively change. That policy, universalized, would preclude us from making any statement or taking virtually any action.

"Open the kimono" to me is cringe. But I don't mind "off the reservation", maybe it's just because I am used to one and not the other idk. I am sure people in the future will find it cringey that we used colors to self-identify or refer to each other. Or that we ate animals.

[Anonymous User]

Seems like the thread got realllllly off topic.

White people "White Knight" about racism so fast I wonder if they are camping out just waiting for their time to shine. It reminds me of how white elites use the term "latinx" even though 90% of Hispanic and Latin people find the term offensive/have never heard of it.

In undergrad I had a teacher and a few classmates spend half an hour telling me, a native American, why I should be offended by the Washington Redskins, Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians, etc. Again another issue where 90% of Native's either support the name or couldn't care less.

But by all means yall, keep white knighting! If anyone wants to talk about the ACTUAL topic though instead of white people telling PoC's they need to be offended I'm happy to listen!

Obviously no one has a right to tell you, or anyone else, what they should take offense to. I'm also a minority, but I probably trend more like you in that I don't really get affected by things that some other people like me might, even if I understand why they do.

That doesn't mean other people are wrong for being offended or for asking people to refrain from what they consider to be offensive and hurtful behavior. It's ultimately a question of empathy. If there are alternative ways to communicate something that don't offend or hurt people, why wouldn't you use them? Is there something inherently gratifying in being offensive just because you can?

But that's also a caricature (rather than a good-faith effort to understand) the opposing position. So long as we oversimplify and straw-man opposing viewpoints, we'll be stuck in this rut. The opposing viewpoint here is also not some inane "we have a right to free speech!" claim that's easily rebutted. It's that "don't say X because X will offend certain people" is a useless prescription if you wield it as widely and uncritically as people have begun to nowadays. It encroaches on our practices (speech, behavior, etc.) in a way that can reasonably strike us as not only unjustified, but also hypocritical.*

If in a liberal society the presumption is that we're free to do things unless they harm others, then the onus is on the self-proclaimed harmed parties who want to curtal others' practices to give a reasonable and consistent* argument about why X is harmful. And we're entitled to scrutinize that argument. Sometimes the argument is a good one; but not always, and not "because I said, so, and I belong to demographic Y." That's not an argument at all.

*For example: you can't claim both that a speaker's intention determines the meaning of X and that an audience's reception determines the meaning of X. If an athlete says that kneeling during the anthem does not = disrespect for the flag because that's not his intention, and you say the athlete's intention determines the action's meaning, then you have to be consistent: do you use the same principle for speech you hold offensive because you, the audience, find it to be offensive? If you're being consistent, you can't: you should defer to the speaker's intention in that situation too.

Different anon than the one you're quoting. I think you make some fair points. But to bring the discussion back to the issue at hand—do you think the arguments against the phrase "open kimono" are not credible?

Bc I think the anon's point assumes the credibility of the arguments that the phrase is offensive, and they are just positing whether people should avoid using the phrase because of those credible arguments.

And I think your example is somewhat off the mark here. No one is confused as to the meaning of "open kimono" in the deal context. The issue is whether the phrase is offensive for the imagery/history it evokes, etc., and not whether there is ambiguity in the actual lawyerly meaning of the term as its used. Kneeling itself is ambiguous in its meaning and that's why there's so much controversy over it (though I personally find the kneelers' arguments credible).

[Anonymous User]

I'm Asian American at a V10 and I find "open the kimono" to be both sexist and racist. My jaw dropped when I first heard it. Unfortunately I was too afraid to confront the senior associate who was using the term. No one else objected to it either.

[Anonymous User]

I'm Asian American at a V10 and I find "open the kimono" to be both sexist and racist. My jaw dropped when I first heard it. Unfortunately I was too afraid to confront the senior associate who was using the term. No one else objected to it either.

Similar experience here. A senior dropped the phrase in a call and my tongue kinda got stuck in my throat for a bit so the moment passed and I didn't bring it up again haha. Next time tho, I'll tell him

[Anonymous User]

Obviously no one has a right to tell you, or anyone else, what they should take offense to. I'm also a minority, but I probably trend more like you in that I don't really get affected by things that some other people like me might, even if I understand why they do.

That doesn't mean other people are wrong for being offended or for asking people to refrain from what they consider to be offensive and hurtful behavior. It's ultimately a question of empathy. If there are alternative ways to communicate something that don't offend or hurt people, why wouldn't you use them? Is there something inherently gratifying in being offensive just because you can?

But that's also a caricature (rather than a good-faith effort to understand) the opposing position. So long as we oversimplify and straw-man opposing viewpoints, we'll be stuck in this rut. The opposing viewpoint here is also not some inane "we have a right to free speech!" claim that's easily rebutted. It's that "don't say X because X will offend certain people" is a useless prescription if you wield it as widely and uncritically as people have begun to nowadays. It encroaches on our practices (speech, behavior, etc.) in a way that can reasonably strike us as not only unjustified, but also hypocritical.*

If in a liberal society the presumption is that we're free to do things unless they harm others, then the onus is on the self-proclaimed harmed parties who want to curtal others' practices to give a reasonable and consistent* argument about why X is harmful. And we're entitled to scrutinize that argument. Sometimes the argument is a good one; but not always, and not "because I said, so, and I belong to demographic Y." That's not an argument at all.

*For example: you can't claim both that a speaker's intention determines the meaning of X and that an audience's reception determines the meaning of X. If an athlete says that kneeling during the anthem does not = disrespect for the flag because that's not his intention, and you say the athlete's intention determines the action's meaning, then you have to be consistent: do you use the same principle for speech you hold offensive because you, the audience, find it to be offensive? If you're being consistent, you can't: you should defer to the speaker's intention in that situation too.

So if I say that kneeling as a form of protest is obviously not meant to disrespect the flag but instead draw attention to inequities in our society... I am never allowed to say that something is offensive unless the speaker intended it to be?

Interpretation isn't that mechanical for the average person on either side of this. I also don't subscribe to the notion that trying to avoid being offensive or harmful in how you communicate with others is materially constraining society outside of maybe very select environments like college campuses, but feel free to provide examples, especially those applicable to a professional working context like biglaw wherein if anything minorities are scared shitless to even raise their hands.

Obviously any basis for "I consider that phrase offensive and would be grateful if you didn't use it" needs to be reasonable and justified. Are you implying that most requests along those lines are not?

[Anonymous User]

Getting back to the original topic, does anyone have a copy of the amended complaint that is at issue now in the case?

[Anonymous User]

When I was a summer associate at my former V10, I once asked a restructuring senior associate about what they were doing about how fratty, white, and male heavy the group was. He looked at me (a white guy) and said incredulously, "why would you care about that?"

[Anonymous User]

When I was a summer associate at my former V10, I once asked a restructuring senior associate about what they were doing about how fratty, white, and male heavy the group was. He looked at me (a white guy) and said incredulously, "why would you care about that?"

Thank you for doing that.

-A gay, nonwhite V10 restructuring associate

[nealric]

Not going to lock this thread because it is an important topic. But please be respectful. No need to name call or make personal accusations.

Bans will be handed out for future name calling in this thread any elsewhere.

[avenuem]

What constitutes name calling for the purposes of future bans?

If I were to call nixy a no-good, low-down, scum-sucking son of a bitch, would that rise to the level of a ban? For the record, I wouldn't. And even if I would, I'm holding off until approval.

[ughbugchugplug]

Very telling that this thread immediately turned into a fight about what words are polite. Antiracism has never been more prevalent and less capable of effecting real change in the world