Jump to content

Black people arrested for sitting in a Starbucks


Pancho

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Even if you take JohnnySack’s Biglaw shit completely on its face, it’s kind of funny that he still doesn’t see how it is an absolutely perfect example of the long-term impact of systemic racism.

There are reasons that blacks are so rare in Biglaw and there are reasons it is so hard for Biglaw to find “qualified” black candidates.

All of that is staring DIRECTLY in his fucking face and what he takes away is, “hey we’re trying to give them some preference at the last stop on the train line” and completely fucking ignores the 400 previous stops.

It’s kind of sad to constantly realize that the most wealthy and powerful people in the nation have the intellectual depth of a kiddie pool.

Let’s take an objective look at it.

88% of practicing lawyers in the U.S. are white. 4.8% are black. That means, statistically speaking, 88 white candidates and 5 black candidates will apply for every 100. Except, that’s not a transitive stat. Not every white or black attorney has ambitions to work for a large firm and we are discounting 7.2% of attorneys that do not fall into either demographic.  

How many firms would qualify as “biglaw”? First, we would have to define the term, which generally refers to firms that have 1,000+ Partners. If we are being very liberal on that terminology, maybe 35 firms in the U.S. would qualify. Of course, the largest firms have offices in big cities, such as New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Miami, so the geographical area is wide yet condensed. Then, factor in the specialized needs, such as dual languages to serve the specific markets, that may be needed for that specialization.

Is it racism or could it possibly be that there aren’t enough qualified black attorneys with 10+ years in antitrust experience willing to relocate to Miami and can speak Spanish?

The stats are on par with the market. A qualified minority candidate, as JS said, is a diamond in the rough that the hiring manager will trip over themselves to extend an offer to. Why? To hit a diversity quota to show how not racist they are because people such as yourself don’t care about the facts.

Never mind. It's pure racism built from an underground conspiracy of big law firms to keep the black man down. There's a handshake and everything.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

Let’s take an objective look at it.

88% of practicing lawyers in the U.S. are white. 4.8% are black. That means, statistically speaking, 88 white candidates and 5 black candidates will apply for every 100. Except, that’s not a transitive stat. Not every white or black attorney has ambitions to work for a large firm and we are discounting 7.2% of attorneys that do not fall into either demographic.  

How many firms would qualify as “biglaw”? First, we would have to define the term, which generally refers to firms that have 1,000+ Partners. If we are being very liberal on that terminology, maybe 35 firms in the U.S. would qualify. Of course, the largest firms have offices in big cities, such as New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Miami, so the geographical area is wide yet condensed. Then, factor in the specialized needs, such as dual languages to serve the specific markets, that may be needed for that specialization.

Is it racism or could it possibly be that there aren’t enough qualified black attorneys with 10+ years in antitrust experience willing to relocate to Miami and can speak Spanish?

The stats are on par with the market. A qualified minority candidate, as JS said, is a diamond in the rough that the hiring manager will trip over themselves to extend an offer to. Why? To hit a diversity quota to show how not racist they are because people such as yourself don’t care about the facts.

Never mind. It's pure racism built from an underground conspiracy of big law firms to keep the black man down. There's a handshake and everything.

man, it is almost like you purposefully tried to demonstrate that you completely and utterly missed the entire point of the post you quoted...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Did someone pay for your college? Nothing wrong with that, of course. I paid my kids' way through college.

Some of it.  I had academic scholarships that covered most of it as I did well on the ACT.  Mom helped with bills.  I also waited tables to pay for gas, insurance, golf, hunting, skiing, beer drinking, etc.  My grandad was a very wealthy man.  Self made who started a company that when he sold it had 20,000 employees and a couple billion a year in revenue.  His father was a letter carrier in a small Texas town.  Granddad went to school on the GI bill but never graduated because he got married young and had my mom 15 months later.  He was from the depression era.  Everyone in my family was expected to work at all times.  Just the way it was.  I started working for his company when I was 13 and it was no cushy job.  And he certainly did not believe in trust funds.  He hated trust fund babies.  So I probably stand to inherit a nice piece of change someday, it won't be until I am 50.  Will benefit my kids more than me as I have made enough not to need it.

I also had a pretty sweet scholarship for law school as I did well on the LSAT.  But I had help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Forget it, this particular individual feels that plate tectonics determined, millions of years ago, California’s homeless nightmare. He’s a total nutjob. 

Awww. Poor baby can't afford to live in CA. 

19 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

You don't know shit about me.  I was top 10 percent at UT Law and could go to any Texas biglaw firm I wanted to after I clerked for a federal judge.  I do not have a trust fund nor have I inherited a penny yet and at age 41 everything I own is from my earnings as an attorney.  I worked in college and in law school, though not during the school year in law school.  My dad died at 16 and was basically broke, so not much help there.

I know it's hard for someone like you to believe, but some people can be successful in life without inheriting anything.  Work hard and smart so you can too.

I wish I had a trust fund though.  Many of my friends do.  I certainly don't look down on them for it.

And you have said you had a trust fund before. Maybe it was from grandpa though. Really, you're just trying to cloud your identity now. And here you go again. People who make their own success don't feel the need to proclaim it.  You, for sure, don't know shit about me.

Someone with your racist bias shouldnt be on a hiring committee. Youre a liability. Just go back to dining with clients. 

Edited by FondrenRoad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

Is it racism or could it possibly be that there aren’t enough qualified black attorneys with 10+ years in antitrust experience willing to relocate to Miami and can speak Spanish?

How do people get to the point that they have succeeded all the way K-12, though bachelor level, through post-grad, and then were hired a long time ago at a separate position? How does that actually work? How are people selected for and against at every little step throughout the entire journey from birth to the Biglaw application process?

Why aren't there enough "qualified" non-white attorneys? Please try to answer.

Quote

Never mind. It's pure racism built from an underground conspiracy of big law firms to keep the black man down. There's a handshake and everything.

The law firms don't even have to think about it. As you guys point out eagerly, the big firms are desperate for more "qualified" black candidates. Why don't they exist? Please avoid this whining bitch sarcasm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I know plenty of shit about you. You do like to go on about yourself. Lets talk about the applicant pool when you were hired. Were any UT applicants rejected who were also in the top 10 percent or had better grades?  Were applicants from better national law schools rejected?

And its still funny that you think you earned it even though daddy paid for it, but minorities who had to work hard to even get to the door, and who made the same grades as you, have "golden tickets." Do you say this in your hiring committee meetings?  I think someone needs a visit from the EEOC.

Anyone who was in the top ten percent at Texas would get an offer from my firm (I am no longer there).  Unless they showed up to the interview drunk or stoned.  Or grabbed a female partner's ass at a recruiting event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

 

And you have said you had a trust fund before. Maybe it was from grandpa though. Really, you're just trying to cloud your identity now. And here you go again. People who make their own success don't feel the need to proclaim it.  You, for sure, don't know shit about me.

Someone with your racist bias shouldnt be on a hiring committee. Youre a liability. Just go back to dining with clients. 

Bullshit I never said I had a trust fund.  Bull fucking shit.  That was from that poor dipshit Plain and Simple repeating it a 1,000 times enough for people like you to believe it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Some of it.  I had academic scholarships that covered most of it as I did well on the ACT.  Mom helped with bills.  I also waited tables to pay for gas, insurance, golf, hunting, skiing, beer drinking, etc.  My grandad was a very wealthy man.  Self made who started a company that when he sold it had 20,000 employees and a couple billion a year in revenue.  His father was a letter carrier in a small Texas town.  Granddad went to school on the GI bill but never graduated because he got married young and had my mom 15 months later.  He was from the depression era.  Everyone in my family was expected to work at all times.  Just the way it was.  I started working for his company when I was 13 and it was no cushy job.  And he certainly did not believe in trust funds.  He hated trust fund babies.  So I probably stand to inherit a nice piece of change someday, it won't be until I am 50.  Will benefit my kids more than me as I have made enough not to need it.

I also had a pretty sweet scholarship for law school as I did well on the LSAT.  But I had help.

Your grandfather was a millionaire.

The struggle is real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No idea how this thread went to big law hiring as I just (stupidly) clicked on the last page, but I do find it funny that a bunch of people that have zero clue how biglaw hiring works are laying into someone that has direct experience with it providing an explanation (and I typically stay out of this forum so not sure if some of the vitriol carries over to post history or what).  The post above about systemic racism and the 400 stops above makes a great point, but Johnny isn't wrong about preferential hiring treatment for minority candidates (and that a minority candidate in the top of their class at a good law school has their choice of any firm in the country).  Every major law firm in the country has a 'diversity committee' aimed at increasing diversity within the firm.  Not debating the merits of this policy but this is pretty much common knowledge in the legal industry.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Skipper said:

The post above about systemic racism and the 400 stops above makes a great point, but Johnny isn't wrong about preferential hiring treatment for minority candidates (and that a minority candidate in the top of their class at a good law school has their choice of any firm in the country).  Every major law firm in the country has a 'diversity committee' aimed at increasing diversity within the firm.  Not debating the merits of this policy but this is pretty much common knowledge in the legal industry.  

Is anyone denying that big law firms really want more minority candidates?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Awww. Poor baby can't afford to live in CA. 

And you have said you had a trust fund before. Maybe it was from grandpa though. Really, you're just trying to cloud your identity now. And here you go again. People who make their own success don't feel the need to proclaim it.  You, for sure, don't know shit about me.

Someone with your racist bias shouldnt be on a hiring committee. Youre a liability. Just go back to dining with clients. 

Sure I could, there’s a plethora of tent cities to choose from. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Your grandfather was a millionaire.

The struggle is real.

Look, I had guaranteed employment from 13, but I actually had to work!! Sure, I had the safest of safety nets around me at all times, but uh I BUILT EVERYTHING WITH MY OWN HANDS FUCK YOU!!!!!

#TrueInspiration

#GritAndDetermination

Edited by bad_teammate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

It’s the truth. Big law has certain GPA requirements. First, there aren’t that many blacks at law schools they recruit from.  And even fewer that make the cutoff

Is it also incredible to you that firms and companies hiring engineers have a hard time getting women and non Asians that are qualified?

Or is it incredible that most doctors are males and most nurses females?

35 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

You don't know shit about me.  I was top 10 percent at UT Law and could go to any Texas biglaw firm I wanted to after I clerked for a federal judge.  I do not have a trust fund nor have I inherited a penny yet and at age 41 everything I own is from my earnings as an attorney.  I worked in college and in law school, though not during the school year in law school.  My dad died at 16 and was basically broke, so not much help there.

I know it's hard for someone like you to believe, but some people can be successful in life without inheriting anything.  Work hard and smart so you can too.

I wish I had a trust fund though.  Many of my friends do.  I certainly don't look down on them for it.

neildegrasse.jpg

Edited by Hank Scorpio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the way to go about this is to disparage Johnny Sack for his relative "privileged" upbringing in the work force.  He could have fucked it up, but he didn't. 

That said, how many African-Americans have a  grandfather from the depression era without a college degree that started a business that made them millionaires?  Can we at least acknowledge that racial discrimination pretty much wouldn't allow that to happen back then?  Can we recognize that African-Americans typically don't have those success stories in their family that have a hugely positive effect on their kids and grandkids?

Edited by Hank Kingsley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hank Kingsley said:

I don't think the way to go about this is to disparage Johnny Sack for his relative "privileged" upbringing in the work force.  He could have fucked it up, but he didn't.

I'm not disparaging him for his upbringing, I'm disparaging him for his current abject stupidity in the face of a world screaming the truth into his face and also disparaging him for the self-righteous blindness and insecurity in how he presents his unremarkable narrative as evidence of some kind of worthy virtue beyond living a safe and normal life.

People like him ignore every single privilege in their entire lives until the point they feel someone had an advantage over them ("Black scholarships!!!!" "Diversity committees!") and it is only THEN that privilege and discrimination mean anything, because they are so selfish and ignorant they can see nothing unless it makes them seem either glorious or victim.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

How do people get to the point that they have succeeded all the way K-12, though bachelor level, through post-grad, and then were hired a long time ago at a separate position? How does that actually work? How are people selected for and against at every little step throughout the entire journey from birth to the Biglaw application process?

Why aren't there enough "qualified" non-white attorneys? Please try to answer.

The law firms don't even have to think about it. As you guys point out eagerly, the big firms are desperate for more "qualified" black candidates. Why don't they exist? Please avoid this whining bitch sarcasm.

I’m not sure that you understand how the law industry operates. So let’s change it to the food industry.

Chefs go to school to hone in their craft. Some chefs master the art of French cuisine, some Italian, some New-Age American and some general purposes. Just because you are a French Chef doesn’t qualify you to be hired as the Head Chef at a 5-star Italian restaurant. There are elements in the cuisines that are similar, but they do not translate with regards to experience. Being a line cook at Olive Garden also may not get you there. Working at Little Caesar’s will put your resume in the trash can.

You are asking why there aren’t enough qualified black applicants? You have to be more specific. In what field? In what city? What experience range is needed? What salary requirements are the black applicants asking for? There are a myriad of answers to your question that are impossible to determine why 4.8% of the practicing attorney population, parsed down to those that actually want to work for big law, aren’t getting hired. (I mean, besides the 3% that already work for biglaw firms)

P.S. Did you know that the majority of black lawyers work in criminal law? That's not an area that biglaw practices in...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I don't think the way to go about this is to disparage Johnny Sack for his relative "privileged" upbringing in the work force.  He could have fucked it up, but he didn't. 

That said, how many African-Americans have a  grandfather from the depression era without a college degree that started a business that made them millionaires?  Can we at least acknowledge that racial discrimination pretty much wouldn't allow that to happen back then?  Can we recognize that African-Americans typically don't have those success stories in their family that have a hugely positive effect on their kids and grandkids?

I really don't see why this is so hard for some people. Because of our history, and because of structures and institutions in our society that persist to this day, it is easier for white people in America to achieve nearly anything than it is for black people. How hard is that to acknowledge? That doesn't mean it's impossible for black people to achieve things, but it is a problem that we should seek to correct. But too many white people can't even acknowledge that basic fact because they're too insecure to admit that they didn't earn 100% of whatever success they've enjoyed by their own hard work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Skipper said:

No idea how this thread went to big law hiring as I just (stupidly) clicked on the last page, but I do find it funny that a bunch of people that have zero clue how biglaw hiring works are laying into someone that has direct experience with it providing an explanation (and I typically stay out of this forum so not sure if some of the vitriol carries over to post history or what).  The post above about systemic racism and the 400 stops above makes a great point, but Johnny isn't wrong about preferential hiring treatment for minority candidates (and that a minority candidate in the top of their class at a good law school has their choice of any firm in the country).  Every major law firm in the country has a 'diversity committee' aimed at increasing diversity within the firm.  Not debating the merits of this policy but this is pretty much common knowledge in the legal industry.  

Anybody at the top of their class at a good law school can pick their firm. Only minorities are singled out as having golden tickets for finishing at the top of their classes. Thats the overarching point. If Johnnys firm is hiring everyone from UT in the top 10% who applies, they arent doing any special favors for an African American who finished in the top 10%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Yeah, no trust fund there either.  

Reading through that thread I am damn glad I did not invest in MLPs. 

"They don't believe in trust fund babies so I get nothing until I am 50, that's why my retirement is not an issue. I am lucky and won the sperm lottery. But I do not feel guilty about that"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I'm not disparaging him for his upbringing, I'm disparaging him for his current abject stupidity in the face of a world screaming the truth into his face and also disparaging him for the self-righteous blindness and insecurity in how he presents his unremarkable narrative as evidence of some kind of worthy virtue beyond living a safe and normal life.

People like him ignore every single privilege in their entire lives until the point they feel someone had an advantage over them ("Black scholarships!!!!" "Diversity committees!") and it is only THEN that privilege and discrimination mean anything, because they are so selfish and ignorant they can see nothing unless it makes them seem either glorious or victim.

 

I believe I said blacks have some privileges.  Like in admissions to higher education.  And employment in certain industries, big law is one of them.  I also acknowledged they have disadvantages in other industries.  Half of my friends are in commercial real estate in Houston.  They all do well.  Not a single one of them lives in a house less than a million bucks.  They all are members of ROCC or HCC.  They all went to UT and were in fraternities.  It is the whitest, fratiest industry around.  Law is not really like that.  

Being white is an advantage in the USA in most circumstances.  But not all.  That was my point.  Along with pointing out that being born in the USA without any kind of disability already puts you in a very, very good situation compared to most of the rest of the world.  Regardless of your color.  Make good choices and you will not ever be really poor in the USA.  Cannot say the same if you were born in many other countries, where you are very likely fucked no matter what choices you make.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jack Burton said:

"They don't believe in trust fund babies so I get nothing until I am 50, that's why my retirement is not an issue. I am lucky and won the sperm lottery. But I do not feel guilty about that"

Yeah, he did not believe in trusts.  So I do not have one.  

You understand the difference in a trust fund and someone inheriting money when an ancestor dies?  They are two different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I really don't see why this is so hard for some people. Because of our history, and because of structures and institutions in our society that persist to this day, it is easier for white people in America to achieve nearly anything than it is for black people. How hard is that to acknowledge? That doesn't mean it's impossible for black people to achieve things, but it is a problem that we should seek to correct. But too many white people can't even acknowledge that basic fact because they're too insecure to admit that they didn't earn 100% of whatever success they've enjoyed by their own hard work. 

I don’t think anyone disagrees with the statement you bolded. I completely disagree with your reasoning behind it because it’s a blanket characterization. Your premise supposes that being white inherently provides an emotional and financial advantage not provided to someone that is black. That is not necessarily true at all.

Sorry guy, no credit to you for overcoming a molesting uncle, growing up poor white trash, being the first in your family to go to college, a divorce that financially wiped you out and Type 2 diabetes. You’re white and that guy’s grandpa had it pretty shitty!

Give me a break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I don't think the way to go about this is to disparage Johnny Sack for his relative "privileged" upbringing in the work force.  He could have fucked it up, but he didn't. 

That said, how many African-Americans have a  grandfather from the depression era without a college degree that started a business that made them millionaires?  Can we at least acknowledge that racial discrimination pretty much wouldn't allow that to happen back then?  Can we recognize that African-Americans typically don't have those success stories in their family that have a huge affect on their kids and grandkids?

I can get on board with a lot of what you’re saying. Essentially, Johnny is saying he had an influential role model in his life that inspired his success, while at the same time not receiving handouts and working his ass off. He should be commended for that, not belittled. 

It’s not surprising that there’s a lack of similar role models in the black community, considering that they’re most likely to live in a single parent household. “Back then” is the key word that you mention, there’s no reason for the number to be so astronomically high in 2017. No community will thrive under those conditions.

Hell, the Asians are kicking everyone’s ass. They are currently suing Harvard because their Applications are being held to a higher standard, since their peers routinely have the highest scores. Nuclear family and education, problem solved. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I believe I said blacks have some privileges.  Like in admissions to higher education.  And employment in certain industries, big law is one of them.  I also acknowledged they have disadvantages in other industries.  Half of my friends are in commercial real estate in Houston.  They all do well.  Not a single one of them lives in a house less than a million bucks.  They all are members of ROCC or HCC.  They all went to UT and were in fraternities.  It is the whitest, fratiest industry around.  Law is not really like that.  

Being white is an advantage in the USA in most circumstances.  But not all.  That was my point.  Along with pointing out that being born in the USA without any kind of disability already puts you in a very, very good situation compared to most of the rest of the world.  Regardless of your color.  Make good choices and you will not ever be really poor in the USA.  Cannot say the same if you were born in many other countries, where you are very likely fucked no matter what choices you make.

 

 

Johnny, there's a very good chance that we have met at some point based on your first paragraph.  At worst, we have a ton of friends in common and I'm sure we'd get along great in real life. 

Regarding your second paragraph: If I said "Being black is a disadvantage in the USA in most circumstances. But not all.".  Would you agree?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

it's like an onion headline. "i come from a family of wealth and privilege, worked hard and have had success! why can't poor black folks do the same?"

More like "Facts: Can we really trust them despite their obvious bias in reality? A SJW's guide to arguing."

Edited by Spankytoes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Johnny, there's a very good chance that we have met at some point based on your first paragraph.  At worst, we have a ton of friends in common and I'm sure we'd get along great in real life. 

Regarding your second paragraph: If I said "Being black is a disadvantage in the USA in most circumstances. But not all.".  Would you agree?

 

yes.  And in the rest of the world as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

You are asking why there aren’t enough qualified black applicants? You have to be more specific.

The fucking field being discussed for pages at length.

Quote

P.S. Did you know that the majority of black lawyers work in criminal law? That's not an area that biglaw practices in...

Why might that be?

Answer questions for fuck's sake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't know shit about me.  I was top 10 percent at UT Law and could go to any Texas biglaw firm I wanted to after I clerked for a federal judge.  I do not have a trust fund nor have I inherited a penny yet and at age 41 everything I own is from my earnings as an attorney.  I worked in college and in law school, though not during the school year in law school.  My dad died at 16 and was basically broke, so not much help there.
I know it's hard for someone like you to believe, but some people can be successful in life without inheriting anything.  Work hard and smart so you can too.
I wish I had a trust fund though.  Many of my friends do.  I certainly don't look down on them for it.
I vaguely remember you soliciting from others ideas on where to invest some big lump sum you got (won/inherited/or something). I remember it because it alertred me to the idea that storage facilities were apparently good investments. That's probably where people got the idea that you were a trust fund kid, that and knowing a bunch of billionaires since you were a kid. Maybe people took the wrong cues.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Yeah, he did not believe in trusts.  So I do not have one.  

You understand the difference in a trust fund and someone inheriting money when an ancestor dies?  They are two different things.

Well T&Ps to the family members you're wishing will die when you hit 50.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What an amazing thread.  There is some serious stupidity and some serious assigning of beliefs going on.

On the OP, horrible treatment of the men at Starbucks.  If the facts are accurate as have been reported, the manager should not have the option to go to another store.  She should be fired.

Not sure I agree that the cops have much blame here.  I certainly agree that cops have some discretion but only to a certain point.  The cops certainly could have tried to work with the manager and men to work out a solution.  But, if the manager says they are trespassing by not buying something (yes I realize that this may be selectively enforced or whatever but the cops can't make that distinction) then the cops do not really have a choice.  They have to ask the men to leave.  They can tell the men that they think the manager is a total whack job, racist white devil, but, legally, she can ask them to leave if they refuse to buy something.  After the men refuse the police order, then they are going to get arrested.  It was a shitty situation and the men got a very raw deal but I can't condemn the cops in this particular instance.  There is an amazingly slippery slope for the public to give on scene cops the discretion to decide how to selectively enforce the law.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:
1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:
You don't know shit about me.  I was top 10 percent at UT Law and could go to any Texas biglaw firm I wanted to after I clerked for a federal judge.  I do not have a trust fund nor have I inherited a penny yet and at age 41 everything I own is from my earnings as an attorney.  I worked in college and in law school, though not during the school year in law school.  My dad died at 16 and was basically broke, so not much help there.
I know it's hard for someone like you to believe, but some people can be successful in life without inheriting anything.  Work hard and smart so you can too.
I wish I had a trust fund though.  Many of my friends do.  I certainly don't look down on them for it.

I vaguely remember you soliciting from others ideas on where to invest some big lump sum you got (won/inherited/or something). I remember it because it alertred me to the idea that storage facilities were apparently good investments. That's probably where people got the idea that you were a trust fund kid, that and knowing a bunch of billionaires since you were a kid. Maybe people took the wrong cues.

That was from a case I settled.  Invested in several trailer parks.  Great business, and I like mailbox money.  I want to buy more.  Glad I did that over the MLPs I was considering.   The ones I was looking at have taken a beating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bad_teammate said:

The fucking field being discussed for pages at length.

Why might that be?

Answer questions for fuck's sake.

Sorry, I can't. Your question is too broad. You may not feel so because it's easy to simply slap the "Must be racism!" tag on it and think that the case is closed. To me, it's the same as asking "How much does a car cost?" I need more details before I can begin to answer that question. I have already provided several topical points for you. (I.E. Only 4.8% of practicing attorneys are black, the majority of black attorneys don't specialize in a field that is practiced at biglaw firms, not every attorney wants to be at a big firm, etc.) I'm not sure why this doesn't parse things down for you already. Not to worry, I'll spell it out for you.

There are approx. 1.25 million practicing attorneys in the U.S. today. If 4.8% of them are black, that means that approx. 60,000 are black. Let's eliminate 70% of those to account for areas that would not qualify for biglaw firms and those with no desire to work for such. That leaves us with 18,000 attorneys. Now, let's eliminate 8,000 of those because they do not live in areas where biglaw firms are located or are not willing to relocate. That leaves us with 10,000 attorneys. If we presume that there are 35 biglaw firms in the U.S., and the minimum for that definition is 1,000 attorneys, that would equal 35,000 attorneys. The current rate of black attorneys at biglaw firms is 3%, which is at least 1,050. That means that 1 out of every 10 black attorneys that we could assume are qualified works for a biglaw firm. That is on par with the population of America and more than double the percentage of actual practicing black attorneys available. If you want to say "Wait, you took out too many black attorneys!" then fine. We can add some back in. We can also really look at the stats of biglaw firms where the Top 5 have over 4,000 attorneys on staff. The numbers are in the ballpark not matter how you slice it.

Anything else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

What an amazing thread.  There is some serious stupidity and some serious assigning of beliefs going on.

On the OP, horrible treatment of the men at Starbucks.  If the facts are accurate as have been reported, the manager should not have the option to go to another store.  She should be fired.

Not sure I agree that the cops have much blame here.  I certainly agree that cops have some discretion but only to a certain point.  The cops certainly could have tried to work with the manager and men to work out a solution.  But, if the manager says they are trespassing by not buying something (yes I realize that this may be selectively enforced or whatever but the cops can't make that distinction) then the cops do not really have a choice.  They have to ask the men to leave.  They can tell the men that they think the manager is a total whack job, racist white devil, but, legally, she can ask them to leave if they refuse to buy something.  After the men refuse the police order, then they are going to get arrested.  It was a shitty situation and the men got a very raw deal but I can't condemn the cops in this particular instance.  There is an amazingly slippery slope for the public to give on scene cops the discretion to decide how to selectively enforce the law.

 

The cops should have talked to the manager and explained what went on.  The manager should have backed off and apologized to the guys.  They were not causing trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Unlike minorities, the trouble with being successful and white is that everyone unfairly presumes that you did not earn your success.

To be fair, the opposite is true for blacks. They aren't automatically presumed successful, and to some, any attributed success comes from questionable sources. There are worse things than having someone assume that you are doing ok simply on looks alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

Sorry, I can't. Your question is too broad.

You can't even begin to try because you're an intellectual and moral coward.

Quote

There are approx. 1.25 million practicing attorneys in the U.S. today. If 4.8% of them are black, that means that approx. 60,000 are black.

Let's start with this and see if you can begin to answer a fucking question:

Why are only 4.8% of blacks practicing attorneys when they represent 12.3% of the population?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

Sorry, I can't. Your question is too broad. You may not feel so because it's easy to simply slap the "Must be racism!" tag on it and think that the case is closed. To me, it's the same as asking "How much does a car cost?" I need more details before I can begin to answer that question. I have already provided several topical points for you. (I.E. Only 4.8% of practicing attorneys are black, the majority of black attorneys don't specialize in a field that is practiced at biglaw firms, not every attorney wants to be at a big firm, etc.) I'm not sure why this doesn't parse things down for you already. Not to worry, I'll spell it out for you.

There are approx. 1.25 million practicing attorneys in the U.S. today. If 4.8% of them are black, that means that approx. 60,000 are black. Let's eliminate 70% of those to account for areas that would not qualify for biglaw firms and those with no desire to work for such. That leaves us with 18,000 attorneys. Now, let's eliminate 8,000 of those because they do not live in areas where biglaw firms are located or are not willing to relocate. That leaves us with 10,000 attorneys. If we presume that there are 35 biglaw firms in the U.S., and the minimum for that definition is 1,000 attorneys, that would equal 35,000 attorneys. The current rate of black attorneys at biglaw firms is 3%, which is at least 1,050. That means that 1 out of every 10 black attorneys that we could assume are qualified works for a biglaw firm. That is on par with the population of America and more than double the percentage of actual practicing black attorneys available. If you want to say "Wait, you took out too many black attorneys!" then fine. We can add some back in. We can also really look at the stats of biglaw firms where the Top 5 have over 4,000 attorneys on staff. The numbers are in the ballpark not matter how you slice it.

Anything else?

We had trouble hiring black attorneys because most of the ones who met our GPA cutoff were getting recruited to even more prestigious firms in NYC, DC, or LA.  You give someone a choice between Skadden or Cravath in NYC or V&E/Baker Botts/Fulbright in Houston or Dallas, most will go to NYC.  We tried hard to hire for diversity.  The competition for qualified minorities was fierce as the pool was small.  And are hiring committee was not a bunch of old whites.  It was mainly the younger partners (old partners don't want to travel all over for OCIs and recruiting events).  When I was on it, a liberal gay female was the head honcho.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...