Outrageous Discriminatory Recruitment II
I recently discussed what I perceived as a discriminatory hiring practice nonetheless endorsed by the UM Law administration. Essentially, a law firm is taking applications for a paid clerkship, the winner also receiving a monetary scholarship (a.k.a. signing bonus). Applicants are limited by race, and whites need not apply.
Apparently other schools are in the DOJ's cross-hairs for very similar scholarship/work-study discrimination. As I commented on a collegue's blog posting, these types of scholarship/employment practices may run afoul of Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The most outragous aspect of this controversy is the fact that UM Law only grudgingly allows the military JAG corps to recruit on campus, disclaiming support for their "discriminatory" practice. Apparently it does not matter to the administration that the military's hiring practices have been deemed legal. The majority of Americans support the military's policies regarding women in combat roles and the "don't ask don't tell" policy with regards to sexual orientation. But a firm that denies opportunities to students based on race is welcomed on campus with open arms. What's next for UM Law...a minority-only or gay-only law review?
I wonder how the "winners" of these scholarships/internships in question must feel, knowing that but for naked racial discrimination, a more qualified candidate might have won instead.
Apparently other schools are in the DOJ's cross-hairs for very similar scholarship/work-study discrimination. As I commented on a collegue's blog posting, these types of scholarship/employment practices may run afoul of Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The most outragous aspect of this controversy is the fact that UM Law only grudgingly allows the military JAG corps to recruit on campus, disclaiming support for their "discriminatory" practice. Apparently it does not matter to the administration that the military's hiring practices have been deemed legal. The majority of Americans support the military's policies regarding women in combat roles and the "don't ask don't tell" policy with regards to sexual orientation. But a firm that denies opportunities to students based on race is welcomed on campus with open arms. What's next for UM Law...a minority-only or gay-only law review?
I wonder how the "winners" of these scholarships/internships in question must feel, knowing that but for naked racial discrimination, a more qualified candidate might have won instead.
posted by King of the Cats @ 10:07 AM
1 Comments:
At 5:30 PM,
King of the Cats said…
TI-
1. I never claimed that I was not a member of the qualifying minority races. I am, however, ineligible because I am not a 1L. I have no personal stake in who wins.
2. I am not saying minority students are less qualified simply because they are minorities, or that they are assumedly less qualified. But I do find it worth noting that for the past few years, the UM Law Review has had very few minority members that would qualify to compete for that scholarship/internship. (To my knowledge, basing admission to the Law Review on race has never been proposed and I do not think it would be accepted well.) There have been many females, religious minorities, and "out" homosexuals on the Law Review in the last few years. All ineligible to compete.
3. Your second paragraph echoes the sentiments of Justice Thomas, himself an African-American. See his dissent in GRUTTER V. BOLLINGER 539 U.S. 306.
It is nice to see that there are still law students who think for themselves.
Post a Comment
<< Home