The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

The American Bar Association's Problematic Proposed "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" Rules for Law Schools


The American Bar Association has proposed new "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" rules for law schools:

A law school shall ensure the effective educational use of diversity by providing: (1) Full access to the study of law and admission to the profession to all persons, particularly members of underrepresented groups related to race and ethnicity; (2) A faculty and staff that includes members of underrepresented groups, particularly those related to race and ethnicity; and (3) An inclusive and equitable environment for students, faculty, and staff with respect to race, color, ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, age, disability, and military status.
Interpretation 206-1 Underrepresented groups are groups related to race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, age, disability, and military status that are underrepresented in the legal profession in the United States when compared to their representation in the general population of the United States. Faculty for purposes of Standard 206(a)(2) includes full-time and parttime tenured and tenure-track faculty, as well as contract faculty, research faculty, adjunct faculty, and any other faculty category.

I see some serious problems with this proposed rule. (I am assuming based on past experience that the ABA will interpret such language as "full access" and "includes" as both allowing and at least with regard to URMs requiring affirmative action preferences if the ABA deems a law school to not otherwise have "enough" members of the relevant groups, with enough left officially undefined.)

First, there is the question of how a law school is to determine that a group is "underrepresented." Traditionally, "underrepresentation" concerns were limited to the official racial and ethnic minorities regarding which educational institutions and the U.S. census collect statistics. Applicants to law schools check off whether they identity as white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, or African American. The Census Bureau also collects statistics about these groups, and their employment in different fields. So there is at least some statistical basis for determining that members of those categories may be "underrerepresented" in the legal profession.

But how is a law school supposed to determine whether a group identified by "religion, national origin, gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, age, [or] disability" is underrepresented in the legal profession? No one gathers or keeps the statistics that would be needed. Are Armenians underrepresented? Gay men? No one knows.

Also troubling: on the religion front, while no one keeps official statistics, we do know that Jews are substantially "overrepresented" among law school faculty. A study a decade or two ago found that thirty percent or so of the faculty at the top 100 law schools identify as Jewish. I suspect it's lower now, but still way higher than Jews' representation in the American population. This means that, among others, Catholics and Protestants are inevitably underrepresented. I'm sure that the ABA doesn't mean to suggest that law schools should be engaging in affirmative action for Protestant faculty (and perhaps students) and disfavoring "overrepresented Jews", but that would be the natural implication of its language. I suspect that the ABA does want to give law schools carte blanche to specifically recruit Muslim faculty, but there is no warrant in federal education law for any sort of religious preference in faculty hiring.

Let's go back to the issue of "groups related to race and ethnicity." As noted, law schools, as required by the Department of Education, collect data on student racial and ethnic ("Hispanic/non-Hispanic") identification. The relevant categories categories were created arbitrarily by federal bureaucrats whose only goal was to unify the racial categories federal agencies used for recordkeeping. See David E. Bernstein, The Modern American Law of Race, 94 S. Cal. L. Rev. 171, 197–200 (2021); see also David E. Bernstein, Classified: The Untold Story of Racial Classification in America (forthcoming 2022). The bureaucrats who created the categories expressly warned that they "should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature" and should not "be viewed as determinants for eligibility for participation in any Federal [affirmative-action] program."

That raises the obvious question of why, in pursuit of educational diversity, law schools should be using these particular categories as their baseline. The categories themselves are extremely broad, including within them widely disparate groups with very different indicia of socioeconomic success, including in the legal community.

"Hispanics" are underrepresented as attorneys, but are such subgroups as Cuban, Argentine, or Spanish Americans underrepresented? "African Americans" are underrepresented, but is that true of, say, Nigerian Americans, who have among the highest incomes of all American groups? "Asian Americans" overall do very well in educational achievement, but that's primarily because of the success of Chinese, Japanese, Indian, and Korean Americans. Are Vietnamese, Cambodian, Hmong, Bangladeshi, Pakistani Americans well represented in the American legal profession? I doubt it. In the white category, how many Appalachians wind up as attorneys are legal faculty? Cajuns? Yemeni, Iraqi, and Egyptian Americans (contrary to popular belief, all Arabs are counted as white)? If the ABA is truly concerned about underrepresented ethnic groups, is there a sound reason why someone of Argentine or Spanish descent should be of special interest to law schools because they (justifiably) check the Hispanic box, but not someone of Hmong or Yemini descent?

Finally, there is a serious constitutional problem with the ABA mandating that law schools engage in any sort of preference for diversity purposes. In Grutter and Bakke, the Supreme Court placed a great deal of weight on deferring to universities' academic freedom to seek diversity for educational reasons. But if the ABA is requiring law schools to pursue diversity, then law schools are no longer exercising independent judgment, but rather are obeying ABA rules to ensure accreditation.

If any VC readers are interested, the ABA is accepting written comments on the proposal "to Leo Martinez, Council Chair. Please send comments to Fernando Mariduena ( by January 21, 2022. Written comments received after January 21, 2022, may not be included in the materials considered by the Council at its February 2022

NEXT: Virginia Bill Would Require Rules "for the Prevention of Inequities Involving the Use of Hate Speech or Ethnically or Racially Insensitive Expressions"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. They don't know what DIE is, but they know it when someone else complains about it.

  2. "we do know that Jews are substantially "overrepresented" among law school faculty. "

    Who are these 'Jews' Bernstein speaks of (or for that matter 'Protestants')? How is that any less problematic than 'Hispanic?' Are we supposed to believe that Woody Allen, William Shatner and Moshe ben Yosef Firrouz are the same?

      1. Well, why do you use such an incoherent term? I think you do because you realize that most groupings are not perfect but they do convey something more often than not.

        1. We can recognize that there is a category of Jews, while also recognizing that there is incredible diversity within the category, such that (a) there are many subgroups that have little in common without each beyond all identifying as being "Jews"; and (2) Knowing that people are "Jews" tells you next to nothing about any given random Jewish individual.

          1. And that still makes "Jews" far more a coherent group than, say, "Asians" or "Hispanics." Unlike Jews, with a common religious and cultural history, these are categories simply made up by the government in the 1970s for bureaucratic ease and convenience.

            1. The government in the 1970s made up the idea that many people around the world were ruled for many years by empires from the Iberian Peninsula?

              1. The government made up the idea that these groups had a common "Hispanic" identify. If you asked 1000 Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban Americans in 1968 to tell you their ethnic or cultural or racial identity, approximately zero would have said "Hispanic."

                1. Mexico, Puerto Rico and Cuba were all ruled by the Spanish empire for several hundred years. It's why they all speak Spanish.

                  1. The United States, England, Canada, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, etc., were all ruled by the British Empire. That's why they all speak English. And?

                    1. And No True Scotsman identifies as Anglian!

                    2. I'm not sure you could have chosen a worse example. US, England, Canada, Australia speak the same language, watch the same entertainment, have common law legal systems, etc.

    1. Hi, Queenie. Zero tolerance for woke. Shut the ABA down by force. End all its government sponsored accreditations.

  3. ". . . that are underrepresented in the legal profession in the United States when compared to their representation in the general population of the United States."

    So, in other words, fixed racial (and gender, and gender identity, and national origin, etc.) quotas.

    1. Intersectionality for the win. Just imagine the competition for the 20-year-old disabled transgender gay Hispanic Azerbaijani adjunct who almost immediately balances out "underrepresentation".

      1. Michael P, I'm kinda thinking the same as you. So my question would be: Would a black gay Muslim from Mexico check four diversity boxes or just one?

        1. four if male, five if female, and six if transgender.

          then again being male might just cancel you out completely

    2. "...when compared to their representation in the general population of the United States." That is over-broad. It should be the population that has graduated from college, and probably further limited to those with at least moderately high grade averages. If the "general population" will be applied to law school admissions, it should also be applied to those who apply to be brain surgeons or pediatric oncologists.

  4. So interesting since does under-represented really mean under-represented or does it mean not enough blacks?

    Many times these alleged diversity quotas never address things that are too black. Only things that are too white. CRA is that way.

    Title IX is supposed to be gender neutral. But in reality its just enforced as not enough woman. We now have an under representation of males on campus. But nobody cares in that direction.

    1. Gee, I wonder why people in the United States might be more sensitive to under-representation of blacks and women in positions of power than it is about whites and men. Maybe something about it's history or something? Who knows?

      1. What is it about blacks and women that led you to believe they need extra help from you people?

        1. It's a long time dumb line by conservatives that if you try to help someone out you must think less of them. Granted I imagine they don't have much experience helping other people out...

          1. Why do you believe the attribute of blackness means you need to help them?

            1. Because black persons have a unique history of disadvantage in this country. This isn't rocket science.

              1. I know that this is just the comments section, but isn't "unique" a sloppy argument? Especially in a comment section that tends to disagree with you?

                1. It's a correct description. Lots of groups have been disafavored in our history but race-based chattel slavery was something different.

                  1. Yeah, I get that, but you built your argument on "unique". As you point out lots of groups are unique. Logically there has to be something met besides unique.
                    Saying it was sloppy is reasonable. I've seen you do better.

                    1. Uh, unique is an adjective. Here it describes the disadvantage.

                  2. So I wonder why there is affirmatice action for Hispanics, then.

                    Surely we are not doing it as reparations for their ancestors' enslavement by the Romans.

                    1. Because they're under-represented. It's not about reparations, it's about representation.

                  3. The problem with that argument is that these policies are not limited to blacks. If it's about representation, why does it matter why they're underrepresented? If it's about (in effect) reparations, then why does it apply to groups that weren't enslaved?

                    1. I point out the history re blacks only to note that that's why they're going to be largely the target of these policies (in other words they are under-represented because of unique disadvantage).

        2. How about the fact that they always complain that they do and their opposition to merit-based systems?

      2. So what does that matter in regards to todays workforce? So you're opinion is that nothing can be too black, its not race neutral its racist. I knew you would think that way

        1. Why does it matter to black people and women that they be represented in influential fields like law? Because they have a long history to draw on that other people aren't going to represent them well.

          1. I'll just take the best lawyer thank you.

            1. 1. It's easy for you say that and
              2. Of course you wouldn't (for example, if the best lawyer was a flaming liberal I doubt you'd prefer them).

              1. It's not the Right refusing to do business with people who disagree or even be friends with people who disagree.

                1. Lol, that's a good one!

                2. I'm on the right and I'll occasionally boycott a business, but I have a criteria. Individually owned or closely held corporations have wide leeway in my book. Publicly traded companies, whose ownership is literally changing with each stock trade, have a burden proving that they have deeply held views of conscience. Though they do have issues close to their area of business that I find reasonable for them to take views on.
                  Privately held companies can still gain my wrath. Which is why Penzey's Spices won't see my business, they kept sending me political emails when I asked them to stop.
                  It is true that being my friend doesn't require a political litmus test.

              2. You can’t comprehend this I know, because of your politically broken brain, but there are a lot of us out here that don’t care about the political orientation of the people we use for services. Or even know it.

                During my wife’s first pregnancy, her care was provided by a partnership of two black doctors. We never gave it a second thought - we were told they were good and that proved to be the case. That was 1988-89. Race isn’t nearly as frequently a factor as you think it is.

                I assume they’re still practicing as they weren’t that old. Carlos and Parnell in Dallas. Look ‘em up.

                1. I'm wondering what you think your anecdote is supposed to show. You yourself don't care if your doctor is white or black, good for you. My point is that of course many blacks and women do care about being represented in influential fields. They're kind of in a different position than you because, well, US history dude.

              3. The best lawyer is the one who most zealously and effectively defends me and protects my interests. I can't see how any other factor (race, gender, ideology) is relevant.

                1. The question is shouldn't there be blacks and women as among the best lawyers.

          2. Because they have a long history to draw on that other people aren't going to represent them well.

            They do?

            1. Yes. Do you think women, for example, were well served by their male representatives through most of US history?

      3. Define "whites"?

        Are Jews "white"?

        Also, why aren't people sensitive about Asians? In fact, in many schools there are active measures to reduce their numbers.

  5. Diversity is meaningless. No group is better, stronger, smarter whatever based on having the right mix of skin color.

    1. The funny thing is that conservatives are actually acutely aware of what's troublesome about under-representation, but only when it involves them (re: academe, journalism, entertainment industry, etc.).

      1. TIL Conservatives are not allowed to advocate for their own well being.

        1. Analogies, how do they work?

      2. Co-blogger James Lindgren has shown that the most "underrepresented" group on law school faculty are white conservative religious Protestant women. There are precious few such law professors, though they are a substantial percentage of the American population. I can see how this can be "troublesome." But this is not the sort of troublesome that the ABA cares about.

        1. Of course conservatives can see the problems of themselves being under-represented in law. It's a similar thing with blacks and women only they actually do have a long history of being oppressed.

          1. You prove my point over and over again. Its just not black enough is the criteria. Its not diversity driven at all.

            1. Blacks have a rather unique history of disadvantage in this country's history so of course efforts to diversify will in large part focus on them.

              1. Ha, blacks have it better here than anyplace on Earth. How did the former slaves who tool Lincoln's offer of travel to Liberia

                I'm sure that there are many countries back in Africa that would be happy to accept US blacks. Then you don't have to worry about racism no more.

                1. Even were it true that blacks have it better here than anyplace on Earth that wouldn't negate that they've had a unique history of disadvantage in this country compared to other groups and so, of course, efforts to diversify are often going to focus largely on them.

                2. " I'm sure that there are many countries back in Africa that would be happy to accept US blacks. Then you don't have to worry about racism no more. "

                  That is your proposal.

                  Here is my counteroffer: We could just continue to drive our vestigial racist Republicans and conservatives into irrelevance and submission in modern America.

                  I, like Vincent, will go with option B. That seems the sound course to me. We will win the culture war and defeat your stale, bigoted way of thinking.

                  Does anyone object? Is so, please explain why better Americans should care.

  6. Woo hoo! As a soon to be retired member of the military, I'm looking forward to being a quota! a quota? Whatever, just level that soft bigotry of low expectations this way please!

    1. I can be in a quota by taking two simple steps:

      1. Chop my balls off
      2. Convert to Islam

      All praise to Allah!!

      1. One makes two impossible - - - - - -

    2. Do you think there is any chance you might win a war even once during your period of service in the military, IamtheBruce? Unless you served during World War II, you haven't been part of a winning team yet.

      Or is an expectation that our military might actually win once in a while, rather than setting for a seemingly endless series of vague draws with ragtag irregulars despite enormous taxpayer-provided resource advantages, not low enough?

      Thank you.

  7. A cap on Jews wouldn't be new for Ivy League programs...

    Much like the efforts to cap Asians on the west coast.

  8. I find it interesting that the ABA talks about the "legal profession", not "legal education". While it is true that men, whites and Jews may be "over represented" in the "legal profession", I'm not so sure they are in law schools. Pretty much everyone should be aware the women now make up the majority of law students and I believe law school graduates. It is only a matter of time until women make up the majority of practicing lawyers, what then?

    It is also interesting that while about 5% of lawyers are black, about 10% of federal Judges are.

    1. Affirmative Action

    2. Women are 50.5% of the US population and 52% of law students.

      1. Better give male applicants a little extra sugar right ?

  9. The guidelines ignore Bostock.

    All these catrgories are purely subjective ones that exist only inside people’s heads.

    To suggest that a person who identifies as male, or nlack, or Vulcan, or Klingon, should apprar or behave any differently from anyone else - that there is such a thing as identity-specific appearance or behavior - is exactly the evil Bostock comdemns.

    Thus, a law school would have no way of knowing which of its students or faculty identify as human, which as Klingon, which as Vulcan, or which as Romulan.

    And this is wven more so of various sub-categories of human.

    Bostock’s essential holding is that it is not possible to know which subcategory a person identifies as. There is no such thing as evidence in this regard. All externalities are irrelevant sterotypes.

  10. You don't need any of this. Just choose based on merit. Does the NBA need a diversity quota? Well there won't be one. That's because these things only apply to things that are not black enough not too black

    1. The NBA is a bit less influential than the profession of law.

      1. So we just selectively apply diversity or is it always just good? Getting tired shifting goalposts.

        1. We certainly want to apply it to something as influential as the legal profession.

          Like I said, you get this at some level. If I told you 'don't worry that most journalists, lawyers, academics, etc., are not conservatives, the liberal ones will represent conservatives well' you'd not buy it. And women and blacks have a much worse history in being represented by other people than conservatives do.

          1. Should we do this in neurosurgery? I mean should you care that you surgeon was chosen by his skin color not his surgical skills?

            1. We most assuredly should diversify the medical profession!


              This doesn't mean promoting unqualified women or blacks, unless you think they cannot be qualified at that or something.

              1. Then don't consider race and gender at all.

                1. Again, you're ridiculous. Would you say 'don't consider the political leanings' of lawyers, academics and journalists? Of course you wouldn't. So why in the world would a black person or a woman not find it troubling that they're under-represented?

                  1. See I only care a about a lawyers LAW skills, I don't care about race, color or political leanings

                    1. Of course you don't, conservative never complain about how academe or journalists or those in the entertainment industry disfavor them. Never ever!

                      By the way, blacks and women really, really care about LAW skills, that's why they want to see more blacks and women with them.

      2. The NBA is a bit less influential than the profession of law.

        I'm not sure I entirely agree with that. Depends on the issue and the people being influenced. On the whole, I think the NBA has a whole lot more influence on people that most Supreme Court decisions.

        1. Yes, Brown v. Board was kind of important but it was no Bulls ThreePeat!

    2. " You don't need any of this. Just choose based on merit. "

      I am optimistic that we will reach that condition. First, of course, we need to drive our vestigial right-wing bigots into even greater irrelevance in America.

  11. So its interesting that the NFL does not have a lot of diversity within its players rosters but is always harping on the need for black coaches?
    Why? Why not just hire the best coach. AND historically the best coaches have not been the best players. AND they have not been black.

    Best black coach ever- Tony Dungy HOF but probably doesn't make the all-time top time.
    Best current black coach- Mike Tomlin. HOF likely but not all time top 10.
    Best Current coaches- Bill Belechick and Andy Reid- Both are certain HOF and both are all time top 10.

    Diversity doesn't work in coaching anymore than it does in players.

    1. NFL players are 60% black but the number of black head coaches is around 12%. You don't see anything wrong with that?

      1. Seems like the same problem with why isn't the percentage of players follow the population?

        You overlook one discrepancy and emphasize another.

        Now you can say Merit! on the player issue which explains the discrepancy. Same can be said with coaching.

        1. Really? White players just make better coaches? Interesting. See, I happen to think black players have the same capacities and capabilities as white players. YMMV.

          1. Really, black people make better players? See I think that white players have the same capabilities as black players and the only reason that the NFL does not reflect the general population percentage is because of racism. And it must be rectified!

            Also look up the word hypocrite in the dictionary.

            1. There are more black players for many of the same reasons that there used to be a lot more Irish and Jewish boxers back when those groups were disadvantaged. Now, would you care to explain why you think whites are so much better at coaching than blacks?

            2. You're a deplorable bigot, wreckinball. Stomping losers like you into submission in the great American culture war has been a privilege and an important, enjoyable endeavor.

              And don't just cry about the fact that I label you a bigot . . . run to Prof. Volokh and ask him to censor me again for saying mean things about the conservative racists this blog attracts.

              Carry on, bigoted clingers.

          2. Yet white players are vastly outnumbered by black players. Outside of racism, can you explain why such a discrepancy?

            1. Obviously the racism is that football is a violent and crippling sport, and blacks are forced into it, given fame and fortune, by their white slavemasters, like modern-day gladiators. They fight, suffer, and die for the entertainment of the dominant race, only to be thrown away when they are no longer useful.

      2. Some of this, much like with lawyers, can be explained with nepotism. Of course, being in Minnesota, I probably saw some of the worst of that in the NFL, with now-ex-coach Zimmer hiring his son as assistant Defensive Coordinator (basically leap-frogging Andre Patterson, an African American) and his friend's son, Klint Kubiak, as offensive coordinator.

        Similarly, I know several children of lawyers who found themselves nice legal jobs, thanks in part to their parents' connections.

        Fixing diversity in law school isn't going to solve that problem.

  12. But if the ABA is requiring law schools to pursue diversity, then law schools are no longer exercising independent judgment, but rather are obeying ABA rules to ensure accreditation.

    How many divisions has the ABA ?

    1. A lot. Without ABA accreditation, your law school is out of business.

      1. It is about time the mainstream reconsiders its mistake of accrediting "educational institutions" that teach nonsense. Should a school that, for example, teaches that evolution is a Satanic hoax and that the Bible's creation account is factual rather than a fairy tale be accredited in modern America, Prof. Bernstein?

  13. The Queen is amplifying post after what post what I've been contending. That this is not a "diversity" effort. This is a make it more black effort which we'll call diversity to cover the real intentions.

    Anyone who points out things that aren't white enough or aren't male enough are scoffed off as being somehow not worthy of the new inclusive diversity standards.

    It can only be non-inclusive or non-diverse if its not lack enough. Otherwise we ignore it.

    1. Again, of course a group that's more disadvantaged is going to be a large part of efforts to diversify. You can't really be this obtuse, can you?

  14. I don't see all the white professors who are pushing for more "diversity" in law schools quitting their tenured positions so they can be given to a minority. Why not?

    1. This is on the level of 'those libertarians sure like driving on those federal highways!'

      1. I think the aphorism is: Put your money where your mouth is. CindyF raises a valid point. It is similar to billionaires lecturing us on how it is virtuous to pay high taxes. It takes chutzpah.

        This regulation is problematic for the reasons Professor Bernstein outlined. The goal is laudable, the means are horrible.

        1. If conservatives want to ditch the bigotry and come up with a better -- or even a reasonable -- solution, that would be great.

          Otherwise, better Americans should continue to disregard and defeat our vestigial bigots.

          1. Arthur, you're a smart man. So I know you will 'get' this, based on your own life experience. Sometimes, not often, the best course of action is to take no 'active' action at all. It is enough to mention it, and then the parties involved take the hint, and make something work - of their own volition, without coercion. You did it passively.

            Might this DEI reg from the ABA fall within this instance? Do you see how that passive approach might (not will, but might) work here?

            1. How would a passive approach be calculated to generate better results?

              Thank you.

              1. Calculate is the wrong word. Incubate is a more precise term, Arthur, when you use the passive approach (IMO). In this instance with the ABA, I posit that simply raising awareness that DEI is actually a thing, will create discussion in academia and large firms. The ideas will incubate within the legal community for some time. How the legal community and large firms act on these ideas is not something you can predict with specificity, but you can reasonably assume there will be *some movement in the general direction you are looking for. If the ideas underlying DEI are compelling, they will be adopted over time, voluntarily and eagerly.

                *Some will act in opposite ways you intend. That is the price of passivity.

        2. Yes, libertarians should put their money where their mouth is and refuse to use the highways funded by theft.

          1. Um, they've already put their money there. Only libertarians who don't pay taxes should refuse to use those highways. Libertarians who do pay taxes are not being hypocrites by using them.

            If a mugger hits you over your head and takes your wallet, and then he feels bad for you and buys you a sandwich before he leaves, you're not being inconsistent by eating the sandwich. You didn't want him to take your wallet, but getting some benefit from the theft is better than getting none.

            1. There's a reason I said CindyF's comment was on the same level as the anti-libertarian dig DN, it wasn't a compliment of either.

  15. Shouldn't Poke-a-Hontas only have gotten 1/1024th of a Hah-Vuhd degree?

    1. Are you confusing Warren using her claimed ancestry for law school with the same for her later employment? The latter had little evidence for it but I don't recall any for the former.

      1. The latter actually had substantial evidence, in particular the fact that she stopped identifying herself as a Native American as soon as you was employed by Harvard and it was thus no longer useful.

    2. Since Warren doesn't have a Harvard degree, your sad name calling doesn't even make sense.

  16. 93 responses and counting, every one about Diversity as a reskin of Affirmative Action from the euphemism treadmill, and not a peep about the value of different opinions or life experiences.

    1. Rage! Rage against the other side, and those who descriminate against you! You feel so attacked!

    2. This might have to do with the fact that "diversity" as applied has nothing to do with different opinions or life experiences, but instead focuses on skin color and genital shape/preference.

      To the contrary, discrimination by viewpoint is actively encouraged in many places - just look at the number of places that restrict speech because it might hurt feelings.

  17. The problem with any goal like this at the professional level is it's about 20 years too late as applied to any individual. Leftists shout racism and White Supremacy at every turn but leave the actionable causes untouched for cynical political reasons. Fix the minority relationship with education and a lot of this will resolve itself naturally, problem is that's not a thing that can be solved through political power.

Please to post comments