Saturday, January 01, 2005


I noticed this article about Clarence Thomas in the L.A. Times yesterday, and just by reading the headline I knew it was a biased slamjob. Ken Masugi of the Claremont Institute elaborates on just how much of a ridiculous hitpiece this is.
Happy New Year!

Or as we Chinese sometimes say, "Xin Nian Hao!"

Friday, December 31, 2004

Movin' On Down

As the new year approaches, I will be moving back down to So. Cal. where I've accepted a job with a relatively new and small law firm in Orange County. Hopefully, this job will work out a lot better than the last associate attorney position I held, and civil litigation won't be something that I hate so much.

Although I am sad to be leaving No. Cal., I do plan to make my way back up here in the next 2-3 years.

Monday, December 27, 2004

Just Watch. He'll Be Called an "Uncle Tom" Liberal

Set for publication this week in the Stanford Law Review is a controversial article written by UCLA law professor Richard Sander. In this article, Sander essentially concludes that affirmative action admission policies in our nation's law schools hurts minorities (e.g., blacks) more than it helps them.

As summarized by Terry Eastland at the Weekly Standard(article link via Powerline):

In the picture Sander draws, the admissions preferences for blacks are very large. This is the case with respect to almost all law schools. Which is to say, contrary to conventional wisdom, preferences aren't confined to the elite schools. Indeed, "affirmative action has a cascading effect through American legal education." The top-tier law schools enroll not only the small number of blacks who don't need preferences to get in but also less-qualified black applicants whose credentials would have sufficed to gain them admission under a race-blind standard to a second-tier school. Second-tier schools are then forced to choose between having few if any black students (under a race-blind standard) or using preferences to reach their racial goals. The second-tier schools make the latter choice, and so the effects cascade to the third-tier schools and on down the law-school ladder. There is thus a "system" in place whose net effect is "to move nearly all blacks up a tier (or two) in the law school hierarchy." Only at the bottom--in the lowest-tier schools--do you find black students who are probably unqualified for any law school.

The cascading effect leaves most black students "mismatched" with peers whose academic credentials (in terms of LSAT scores and UGPA) are superior. Which means, as Sander puts it, that "nearly all blacks [are placed] at an enormous academic disadvantage in the schools they attend." And so there are "mismatch effects." In their first year, about 50 percent of black law students end up in the bottom tenth of their class, and roughly two-thirds in the bottom fifth, with only 8 percent placing in the top half. The grades of black law school students go down a bit from the first to the third year. Black students have a much higher attrition rate than white students (19 percent compared with 8 percent). Sander finds that fact unsurprising, since students (of whatever race) with the very worst grades are those who are expelled or drop out. Finally, black law school graduates fail the bar exam at four times the rate of white graduates. Sander concludes that more than 40 percent of black students starting out to become lawyers never reach that goal.