"Progressive stacking" profs Forum

[FrenchPrince]

Dovetailing off the HLS thread, who are professors at your school or peers who are known to or suspected to participate in "progressive stacking" when it comes to clership LORs? That means, ceteris paribus, they explicitly favor URMs in terms of who they agree to write for, what level of judge they write for, how enthusiastically they write / advocate, etc. If particularly strident i.e. won't write for white / ORM / males at all, please mention.

[<3waitlists]

Why is this anon? And lol "ceteris paribus." Okay fed soc bro.

[Joachim2017]

Although it's probably not a pleasant task to have to put on your plate when you're applying for clerkships, being aware of things like #lawtwitter and its variants will help determine answers to this question.

Faculty at top law schools are pretty tightly knit across schools, and following just some of them will help gauge this for others. For example, follow a few of the more intolerant younger faculty at Michigan Law, for example (Leah Litman is an obvious one, as mentioned in the other thread) and you'll find others at other schools like, e.g., NYU, and hopefully enough info to get a picture of what things are like at your own school.

Whatever people might want to argue about the "justice" or merits of these types of things, that it's real is not deniable, and it will probably get more pronounced (law review at elite schools, for example, is now pretty much a meaningless metric beyond its intrinsic work), so I'm all in favor of more information for more students caught in the crossfire.

[FrenchPrince]

Although it's probably not a pleasant task to have to put on your plate when you're applying for clerkships, being aware of things like #lawtwitter and its variants will help determine answers to this question.

Faculty at top law schools are pretty tightly knit across schools, and following just some of them will help gauge this for others. For example, follow a few of the more intolerant younger faculty at Michigan Law, for example (Leah Litman is an obvious one, as mentioned in the other thread) and you'll find others at other schools like, e.g., NYU, and hopefully enough info to get a picture of what things are like at your own school.

Whatever people might want to argue about the "justice" or merits of these types of things, that it's real is not deniable, and it will probably get more pronounced (law review at elite schools, for example, is now pretty much a meaningless metric beyond its intrinsic work), so I'm all in favor of more information for more students caught in the crossfire.

Helpful, thanks. Anything in particular I should be looking for? I ask because I can imagine even very outspokenly liberal / pro-AA profs not giving a shit about identity politics, or potentially even ideology, when deciding who to write and call for, whereas even more moderate profs potentially could progressively stack if they think it's good for society or whatever.

[Joachim2017]

Although it's probably not a pleasant task to have to put on your plate when you're applying for clerkships, being aware of things like #lawtwitter and its variants will help determine answers to this question.

Faculty at top law schools are pretty tightly knit across schools, and following just some of them will help gauge this for others. For example, follow a few of the more intolerant younger faculty at Michigan Law, for example (Leah Litman is an obvious one, as mentioned in the other thread) and you'll find others at other schools like, e.g., NYU, and hopefully enough info to get a picture of what things are like at your own school.

Whatever people might want to argue about the "justice" or merits of these types of things, that it's real is not deniable, and it will probably get more pronounced (law review at elite schools, for example, is now pretty much a meaningless metric beyond its intrinsic work), so I'm all in favor of more information for more students caught in the crossfire.

Helpful, thanks. Anything in particular I should be looking for? I ask because I can imagine even very outspokenly liberal / pro-AA profs not giving a shit about identity politics, or potentially even ideology, when deciding who to write and call for, whereas even more moderate profs potentially could progressively stack if they think it's good for society or whatever.

Unfortunately I don't think there's any generally applicable set of buzzwords or formula or anything that will help in this regard, it's more of a rough art than a science. Because what you really care about are the profs at your own school, you should just be aware of stuff during interpersonal settings. At the end of the day, people who haven't interacted personally with these profs won't have an algorithmic answer.

Also, as a general note, there should only be so many professors who are on the short list of people you'd consider asking to write letters for you, so this isn't a gargantuan exercise. (Though I understand some students may want to select courses taught by professors who are more open-minded in the first place. That too is more of a every-school-has-its-culture thing.)

[dvlthndr]

I have never heard of this happening at my school. Maybe there was something going on behind the scenes, but I couldn’t point to a single professor who makes a point of slighting “overrepresented” groups.

What I have seen is that professors write strong letters for people that they like, and that they have worked with on a personal level (e.g., you were in office hours each week and worked as a research assistant or TA). Getting a good grade is necessary, but not sufficient, for getting a great recommendation letter.

It might help to share the same interests and political views as a professor (or at least pleasant and tactful enough to hold a civil conversation for more than a few minutes). But it’s much more about coming off as a likeable human being, rather than some kind of ideological purity test/political statement.

[The Lsat Airbender]

Literally just talk to your professors. Wow, lol. This isn't rocket science.

If your relationship with someone is good enough that they'd make a decent letter-writer in the first place [you probably don't need to worry about them backstabbing you and if you have any doubt,] you can just, y'know, ask them what kind of candidates they like to recommend.

e: scooped by dvl

[nixy]

If you’re going to call this “progressive stacking” can we come up with a similarly catchy name for the Fed Soc network? Can we also clarify whether this is about liberals preferring liberals or liberals not writing for white dudes? Because those aren’t the same thing and while #lawtwitter will certainly make political biases clear (on all sides), I don’t think it’s going to actually demonstrate anyone dissing qualified white dudes for the sake of being white dudes.

[FrenchPrince]

If you’re going to call this “progressive stacking” can we come up with a similarly catchy name for the Fed Soc network? Can we also clarify whether this is about liberals preferring liberals or liberals not writing for white dudes? Because those aren’t the same thing and while #lawtwitter will certainly make political biases clear (on all sides), I don’t think it’s going to actually demonstrate anyone dissing qualified white dudes for the sake of being white dudes.

Anon from the other thread, and clearly OP is talking about identity as opposed to ideology. I'm not really here to debate the merits of this practice with you here, as that's not what this thread is for. But let's just get some names down for profs who, either openly or in practice, participate in this kind of "URM identity-boost" behavior. The Litman example shows clearly not every prof is open about it, but frankly it's better for all parties involved--profs, high-performing URMs, high-performing "privileged" kids--if the info is out in the open.

[nixy]

If you’re going to call this “progressive stacking” can we come up with a similarly catchy name for the Fed Soc network? Can we also clarify whether this is about liberals preferring liberals or liberals not writing for white dudes? Because those aren’t the same thing and while #lawtwitter will certainly make political biases clear (on all sides), I don’t think it’s going to actually demonstrate anyone dissing qualified white dudes for the sake of being white dudes.

Anon from the other thread, and clearly OP is talking about identity as opposed to ideology. I'm not really here to debate the merits of this practice with you here, as that's not what this thread is for. But let's just get some names down for profs who, either openly or in practice, participate in this kind of "URM identity-boost" behavior. The Litman example shows clearly not every prof is open about it, but frankly it's better for all parties involved--profs, high-performing URMs, high-performing "privileged" kids--if the info is out in the open.

I don't really agree. I don't think there's any way to know this without people extrapolating wildly from their own experiences. There's no way to know who else the prof wrote for under what circumstances. And there's no reason profs who want to increase representation of whatever groups in the legal profession wouldn't also write for members of other groups - there's no limit on letters a prof can write. I don't think you can even argue from the anecdote given that Litman would never write for a white dude. This seems like way too much attention focused on something not really an issue in practice, and I agree with dvlthndr and The LSAT Airbender on how to approach profs. People are much better off taking classes they're interested in, doing their best, and getting to know their profs as actual people, rather than as instruments to their careers.

[FrenchPrince]

Every day I thank God I'm not an on-plan white Midwestern liberal male applicant. Even for profs who don't "stack", profs must feel so much pressure to go above and beyond for equally performing minorities, even though judges from all stripes have affirmative action in their hiring these days. White dudes applying to even quasi-feeders have to have grades that Oliver Wendell Holmes himself would garner to stand a chance.

[beepboopbeep]

The quote describing the Litman thing in the other thread was:

Student A asked Litman for a clerkship rec letter based on A's performance in her class. Litman declined, and so A had to ask other professors for letters. In passing, Student B mentioned to Litman that Student A was in the running for HLR President. Litman told B that A has asked her for a rec letter, that she had declined to write for A, that A had great grades but she felt A was too "entitled" due to his identity, and that she didn't think A should be law review president.

How you get from this to "progressive stacking" is beyond me; even taking this all as true, it just sounds like Litman didn't like the guy. Does anyone have an example of a prof doing what's described in the OP either explicitly or implicitly? I never heard of it when I was going through the clerkship rec letter process, and the whole thing reeks of invented moral panic.

[Anonymous User]

White dudes applying to even quasi-feeders have to have grades that Oliver Wendell Holmes himself would garner to stand a chance.

That, or just have median grades and be in fed soc.... (and somehow, despite it being so hard for white dudes out there, white dudes keep managing to get clerkships, including for feeders/scotus).

[Anonymous User]

White dudes applying to even quasi-feeders have to have grades that Oliver Wendell Holmes himself would garner to stand a chance.

That, or just have median grades and be in fed soc.... (and somehow, despite it being so hard for white dudes out there, white dudes keep managing to get clerkships, including for feeders/scotus).

The idea that the median FedSoc white male, even at a T3, gets a semi-feeder is just poor math.

[MarkmanPapers]

Without commenting on the existence or non existence of this supposed practice, the very existence of this thread is an emblematic case study in the kind of resentment measures to address systemic disadvantage can trigger among ostensibly “well meaning” white people.

[nixy]

Every day I thank God I'm not an on-plan white Midwestern liberal male applicant. Even for profs who don't "stack", profs must feel so much pressure to go above and beyond for equally performing minorities, even though judges from all stripes have affirmative action in their hiring these days. White dudes applying to even quasi-feeders have to have grades that Oliver Wendell Holmes himself would garner to stand a chance.

Lolllllllll. I think you have your demographics confused. How many minority federal clerks have you seen? I’ve clerked in two different courthouses and now practice lit and I think I’ve met 3. (And even if you were correct, welcome to the world of minorities/women.)

[Anonymous User]

Every day I thank God I'm not an on-plan white Midwestern liberal male applicant. Even for profs who don't "stack", profs must feel so much pressure to go above and beyond for equally performing minorities, even though judges from all stripes have affirmative action in their hiring these days. White dudes applying to even quasi-feeders have to have grades that Oliver Wendell Holmes himself would garner to stand a chance.

Lolllllllll. I think you have your demographics confused. How many minority federal clerks have you seen? I’ve clerked in two different courthouses and now practice lit and I think I’ve met 3. (And even if you were correct, welcome to the world of minorities/women.)

If you think URMs at similar clerkships have average grades that are *better* than their white male peers...have I got news for you

[lavarman84]

Without commenting on the existence or non existence of this supposed practice, the very existence of this thread is an emblematic case study in the kind of resentment measures to address systemic disadvantage can trigger among ostensibly “well meaning” white people.

I think you're being generous by even including "well meaning" in your post.
(And yes, I do recognize that it was a bit tongue in cheek.)

Frankly, I've come to expect this. Conservatism in the Republican Party today has too often come to represent white grievance politics. I've got very little patience for it.

[abujabal]

intolerant younger faculty at Michigan Law, for example (Leah Litman is an obvious one, as mentioned in the other thread)

The notorious "intolerance" of Leah Litman is necessary to enforce the Voting Rights Act

[BansheeScream]

This thread is a dumpster fire. Why are we even entertaining this? Because a person heard second hand that one professor didn't write a letter for a kid because he was entitled? There's no evidence that's even remotely common practice and I have rarely heard about professors saying no to a rec letter for any reason let alone because the student was a white male.

edited for clarity

[cavalier1138]

Evidently I don't spend enough time in this forum.

Locking this one, since even if it wasn't meant to turn into a thinly veiled debate about affirmative action, that's where we are now. Feel free to use the Lounge for those kinds of discussions.