ADVERTISEMENT

Iowa's Brenna Bird among 5 attorneys general warning law firms to end race-based hiring

So a law firm in Chicago is looking at hiring one of two candidates for their litigation practice group. Their litigation practice group handles primarily cases pending in Cook County, including taking dozens of medical negligence cases to trial before Cook County juries.

Candidate #1: White. Attended University of Wisconsin Law School; undergrad at Notre Dame University. Grew up in rural Wisconsin. Finished in Top 10% of graduating class. Was on the Wisconsin Law School National Moot Court team. Spent a summer clerking for a judge in Madison where he got to see motion practice and a couple of jury trials.

Candidate #2: African-American. Attended University of Minnesota Law School; undergrad at Mankato State. Grew up in the metropolitan Minneapolis area. Finished in Top 20% of graduating class. Spent a summer clerking for a small law firm in Minneapolis, primarily doing research.

Chicago law firm recognizes that a large number of Cook County juries will include a significant number of African-Americans. The law firm believes that African-American jurors in Cook County, in many instances, may respond more favorably to an African-American's representation of a firm client at trial. In making its decision to hire Candidate #2, the law firm uses the applicant's race as not the exclusive factor but one of the factors in the hiring decision. It believes that its clients, as a whole, will benefit from Candidate #2 being part of the litigation practice group.

Did the Chicago law firm engage in illegal discrimination based upon race?

Reality. Neither candidate is from a top 14 law school so partners at amlaw firms look at both as charity hires. Minnesota is currently ranked 16 while Wisconsin is ranked at a cringe 29 up from a flyover 43. So they hire the black kid because of rankings and because they can hit the double double on hiring outside the real law schools and he is a minority. Drinks all around at how benevolent they have been and a quick reminder that neither should be considered for early partner tracks.

I noticed you didn't include gender. Could have been the trifecta of benevolence.
 
There are a lot of highly qualified kids of all races, creeds, religions and income levels. California seems to understand this better than most places.
Including white kids. Weird how the majority race is openly discriminated against and people celebrate it
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Mpchillin
I won’t hire based on race or gender. I have rarely hired people based on references (including those I work with). I look at their experience and usually have pretty in-depth interviews based on how closely their experiences tie into what I expect the position’s duties are.

I let other people worry about filling quotas. A few bad employees can spoil a good and efficient department. I’ve seen it first hand.
 
Deplorable:

Brenna Bird of Iowa is among five Republican attorneys general to sign off on a nine-page letter to the 100 largest law firms in the United States, known as the "Am Law 100." The letter warns executives of the firms that they must "refrain from discriminating on the basis of race, whether under the label of 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' or otherwise."

"Differential treatment based on race is not only divisive but illegal … We expect our attorneys to follow the law like everyone else," Bird wrote in a Tuesday social media post.


The letter cites a June U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down affirmative action admissions policies used by Harvard College and the University of North Carolina.

Led by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, Bird and attorneys general from Arkansas, Kansas and Kentucky argue that the decision extends to private employers.

Their letter raises concerns with diversity programs at law firms, such as requiring diverse candidates when hiring for leadership roles, setting goals for the percentage of employees from underrepresented groups, or sponsoring fellowship programs based on race.

They also criticize diversity training that assigns "fault, blame or bias" to members of a race, or that discusses implicit racism or bias because of race.

POLITICS

Iowa's Brenna Bird among 5 attorneys general warning law firms to end race-based hiring​

Katie Akin
Des Moines Register









Iowa has joined four other red states in sending a warning to America's largest law firms: Stop using race-based hiring for employees and contractors or "you will be held accountable."

Brenna Bird of Iowa is among five Republican attorneys general to sign off on a nine-page letter to the 100 largest law firms in the United States, known as the "Am Law 100." The letter warns executives of the firms that they must "refrain from discriminating on the basis of race, whether under the label of 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' or otherwise."

"Differential treatment based on race is not only divisive but illegal … We expect our attorneys to follow the law like everyone else," Bird wrote in a Tuesday social media post.


The letter cites a June U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down affirmative action admissions policies used by Harvard College and the University of North Carolina.

Led by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, Bird and attorneys general from Arkansas, Kansas and Kentucky argue that the decision extends to private employers.



Their letter raises concerns with diversity programs at law firms, such as requiring diverse candidates when hiring for leadership roles, setting goals for the percentage of employees from underrepresented groups, or sponsoring fellowship programs based on race.

They also criticize diversity training that assigns "fault, blame or bias" to members of a race, or that discusses implicit racism or bias because of race.


Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron, who is in a heated race for governor against incumbent Democrat Andy Beshear, dismissed race-based hiring practices as "identity politics" and said at a Wednesday campaign stop, “Kentucky should be a place where everyone can succeed, not just those who were born on third base to check a DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) box.”

Federal law prohibits employers from considering race and other protected characteristics in employment decisions.

However, employers may use diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives to make their workforces less homogeneous and their workplaces more inclusive by casting a wide net for qualified workers from different backgrounds, according to Andrew Turnbull, a labor and employment partner at law firm Morrison & Foerster.
Did you forget to post some of the article or what is deplorable? Are you saying race should be acceptable in favoritism of hiring practices or law firms?
 
Then what is wrong with considering it in hiring?
Nothing at all. As long as a hiring manager can take the best available. If a company is forced to take a “diverse” candidate over someone else more qualified, that is obviously a decision based off race or sex. I Just don’t understand how people like you don’t realize this. Most Law Schools and Top 500 corporations admit they do this.

And to be clear, I am ok with it. I just hate idiots that don’t admit it exists
 
Slavery and Jim Crowe was such a much better way of life.
I understand you are old; but your argument is todays kids should be punished for the sins of some random idiots 150 years ago? That makes a lot of sense.

Eye for an eye. All for it. Let’s punish those that had zero to do with the sins of random racist whites. Got it.
 
Deplorable:

Brenna Bird of Iowa is among five Republican attorneys general to sign off on a nine-page letter to the 100 largest law firms in the United States, known as the "Am Law 100." The letter warns executives of the firms that they must "refrain from discriminating on the basis of race, whether under the label of 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' or otherwise."

"Differential treatment based on race is not only divisive but illegal … We expect our attorneys to follow the law like everyone else," Bird wrote in a Tuesday social media post.


The letter cites a June U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down affirmative action admissions policies used by Harvard College and the University of North Carolina.

Led by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, Bird and attorneys general from Arkansas, Kansas and Kentucky argue that the decision extends to private employers.

Their letter raises concerns with diversity programs at law firms, such as requiring diverse candidates when hiring for leadership roles, setting goals for the percentage of employees from underrepresented groups, or sponsoring fellowship programs based on race.

They also criticize diversity training that assigns "fault, blame or bias" to members of a race, or that discusses implicit racism or bias because of race.

POLITICS

Iowa's Brenna Bird among 5 attorneys general warning law firms to end race-based hiring​

Katie Akin
Des Moines Register









Iowa has joined four other red states in sending a warning to America's largest law firms: Stop using race-based hiring for employees and contractors or "you will be held accountable."

Brenna Bird of Iowa is among five Republican attorneys general to sign off on a nine-page letter to the 100 largest law firms in the United States, known as the "Am Law 100." The letter warns executives of the firms that they must "refrain from discriminating on the basis of race, whether under the label of 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' or otherwise."

"Differential treatment based on race is not only divisive but illegal … We expect our attorneys to follow the law like everyone else," Bird wrote in a Tuesday social media post.


The letter cites a June U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down affirmative action admissions policies used by Harvard College and the University of North Carolina.

Led by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, Bird and attorneys general from Arkansas, Kansas and Kentucky argue that the decision extends to private employers.



Their letter raises concerns with diversity programs at law firms, such as requiring diverse candidates when hiring for leadership roles, setting goals for the percentage of employees from underrepresented groups, or sponsoring fellowship programs based on race.

They also criticize diversity training that assigns "fault, blame or bias" to members of a race, or that discusses implicit racism or bias because of race.


Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron, who is in a heated race for governor against incumbent Democrat Andy Beshear, dismissed race-based hiring practices as "identity politics" and said at a Wednesday campaign stop, “Kentucky should be a place where everyone can succeed, not just those who were born on third base to check a DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) box.”

Federal law prohibits employers from considering race and other protected characteristics in employment decisions.

However, employers may use diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives to make their workforces less homogeneous and their workplaces more inclusive by casting a wide net for qualified workers from different backgrounds, according to Andrew Turnbull, a labor and employment partner at law firm Morrison & Foerster.
So, you are ok if one of your kids get passed over for a scholarship, college choice or career for someone less qualified?
 
I understand you are old; but your argument is todays kids should be punished for the sins of some random idiots 150 years ago? That makes a lot of sense.

Eye for an eye. All for it. Let’s punish those that had zero to do with the sins of random racist whites. Got it.
It’s pretty obvious to me that “today’s kids” haven’t learned the lesson yet, either. They aren’t being “punished” you stupid phuque....perhaps they were being shown a better way?
Don’t you want them to be better than us?
 
It’s pretty obvious to me that “today’s kids” haven’t learned the lesson yet, either. They aren’t being “punished” you stupid phuque....perhaps they were being shown a better way?
Don’t you want them to be better than us?
Of course I do and if they haven’t learned their lesson yet, that’s on the parents. But, if you are seriously arguing that admission to schools or jobs should be race and/or gender based, just admit that it “phuques” over others. It isn’t hard to admit. And again, I am all for the initiative. The difference is, I admit it exists. There are limited spots in schools and jobs; if this is the best way to help those that grow up less fortunate, so be it. But it obviously takes away from others. I seriously cannot comprehend how you cannot see that
 
Of course I do and if they haven’t learned their lesson yet, that’s on the parents. But, if you are seriously arguing that admission to schools or jobs should be race and/or gender based, just admit that it “phuques” over others. It isn’t hard to admit. And again, I am all for the initiative. The difference is, I admit it exists. There are limited spots in schools and jobs; if this is the best way to help those that grow up less fortunate, so be it. But it obviously takes away from others. I seriously cannot comprehend how you cannot see that

So you support it while admitting it "phuques" over others?
 
So you support it while admitting it "phuques" over others?
My pea brain cannot think of a better way to help promote DEI. I wish I could. I just cannot stand those that push it so hard and don’t recognize it can screw over others. I understand the “others” are most likely white kids; but they, the kids, did nothing to deserve it. And sometimes it does screw them. Again, hard for many to sympathize with them when they are fixated on past sins.

Editing this to say - I wish everyone could go to the school or get the job they want. But #s are limited. Clearly some kids grow up with privilege and there needs to be a path for those that don’t. I just don’t know what that is, and i wish I did or could help. All I am saying is that if someone that is less qualified does indeed get something over someone else (a job, school, ext …) because of race or gender, that is inherently favoritism. Strictly Legally speaking, which the original post tallied about, that is against the constitution.
 
Last edited:
After decades of effort to root out systemic racism in America, with notable but slow success, it's nothing short of stunning just how quickly much of the progress has been rolled back. I'm very worried how far it will go.
Oh look. @EvolutionDenier - with no posts to his new name - laughed at this post. Yessir, it's funny to see accelerating racism in America. Very funny stuff, indeed.
 
Of course I do and if they haven’t learned their lesson yet, that’s on the parents. But, if you are seriously arguing that admission to schools or jobs should be race and/or gender based, just admit that it “phuques” over others. It isn’t hard to admit. And again, I am all for the initiative. The difference is, I admit it exists. There are limited spots in schools and jobs; if this is the best way to help those that grow up less fortunate, so be it. But it obviously takes away from others. I seriously cannot comprehend how you cannot see that
My father once told me, “Life is tough all over.” Somehow we got ourselves into this mess...and this is the solution...ever evolving...but to drop all attempts at making it a “fair” process is to admit we really don’t give a shit about it. And that is where the Court’s decision has put us. The SC would have been better off walking away from this case. They have NO solution....and Brian, honestly, that’s what the Courts are supposed to do...be active when necessary...active under the law. This particular SC has failed miserably in this mission.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: EvolutionDenier
Nothing at all. As long as a hiring manager can take the best available. If a company is forced to take a “diverse” candidate over someone else more qualified, that is obviously a decision based off race or sex. I Just don’t understand how people like you don’t realize this. Most Law Schools and Top 500 corporations admit they do this.

And to be clear, I am ok with it. I just hate idiots that don’t admit it exists

Show me where I stated companies didn't do that. Quit the straw man game. It's a.bad faith game.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: EvolutionDenier
Show me where I stated companies didn't do that. Quit the straw man game. It's a.bad faith game.
Fair. Maybe misread your comment. You say a hiring manager should be able to consider race as a factor, I just assumed you meant it could be a deciding factor, regardless of qualifications. My bad. So, based off your “straw man comment”, you do agree that the most qualified candidate should get the job though? I’m just want to make sure you understand your own argument here
 
Fair. Maybe misread your comment. You say a hiring manager should be able to consider race as a factor, I just assumed you meant it could be a deciding factor, regardless of qualifications. My bad. So, based off your “straw man comment”, you do agree that the most qualified candidate should get the job though? I’m just want to make sure you understand your own argument here

Yes. The most qualified, but that title consists of a number of variables. When I hire someone I look to see how they might fit in with our current staff. I will chose someone with more EQ over someone more technically proficient sometimes. It depends on the job. My point is that diversity of an office in a diverse country is a variable that should be considered.

When I was a younger worker in the 90's in Chicago I watched an insurance guy I worked with cynically interview black people with ZERO intention of ever hiring one. So lets not act like that doesn't happen either. There are two sides to the coin.
 
If we get to that point, I'm guessing this stunt gets shut down just like the illegal actions where Dim Kim wants minors working in high risk occupations.

Goddamn, Mississippi North Republicans are some stupid fvcks!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: abby97
The
If we get to that point, I'm guessing this stunt gets shut down just like the illegal actions where Dim Kim wants minors working in high risk occupations.

Goddamn, Mississippi North Republicans are some stupid fvcks!
The Supreme court just ruled against dei in admissions for universities. It was the correct ruling.

This isn't any different
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: abby97 and Kelsers
When are all of you dipshit libturds gonna leave the state anyway? Please do everyone a favor and get your ass to California or New York.
 
  • Like
Reactions: abby97
Yes. The most qualified, but that title consists of a number of variables. When I hire someone I look to see how they might fit in with our current staff. I will chose someone with more EQ over someone more technically proficient sometimes. It depends on the job. My point is that diversity of an office in a diverse country is a variable that should be considered.

When I was a younger worker in the 90's in Chicago I watched an insurance guy I worked with cynically interview black people with ZERO intention of ever hiring one. So lets not act like that doesn't happen either. There are two sides to the coin.
Whatever helps you sleep at night after your day's racist actions.
 
Yes. The most qualified, but that title consists of a number of variables. When I hire someone I look to see how they might fit in with our current staff. I will chose someone with more EQ over someone more technically proficient sometimes. It depends on the job. My point is that diversity of an office in a diverse country is a variable that should be considered.

When I was a younger worker in the 90's in Chicago I watched an insurance guy I worked with cynically interview black people with ZERO intention of ever hiring one. So let’s not act like that doesn't happen either. There are two sides to the coin.
We’re on the same page brother. I went to small investment firm and we are also all about “fit”. That is horrible you had guy that is a racist loser that hired that way. Of course it happens, and people suck. Didn't realize that’s where this conversation was going
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT