Jump to content

Why Is Every Minority Group Extremely Underrepresented In Law? And Will Racially-Based Hiring and Promotions Lead To Tribalism and Splintering?


TheCryptozoologist
 Share

Recommended Posts

TheCryptozoologist
  • Articling Student

So I was reading these statistics:

https://lawsocietyontario.azureedge.net/media/lso/media/lawyers/practice-supports-resources/equity-supports-resources/snapshot-lawyerseng-pdf.pdf

Its interesting how basically, every single minority group in Canada is underrepresented. Even groups who comprise a high percentage of university graduates are remarkably underrepresented in the legal profession and I can imagine this trend is worse for partners at firms as well as bigger firms. As I understand alot of national firms are trying to inboard proportional representation of black lawyers in proportion to the black population. And this view is becoming common among all people of color it seems, alot of my friends from minority backgrounds have expressed belief that they are less likely to be hired, promoted or retained. Since every visible minority is underrepresented as lawyers relative to their population as well as among bigger firms, it really is only a matter of time before all groups make demands to be represented proportionately to their demographics overall.

Personally I think there's both a negative and a positive to these equality initiatives. I don't fully believe that everything is attributable to just racism, but racial or ethnic bias is operating strongly. Psychological evidence and real-life would show how strongly implicit bias is at work, and it certainly does influence hiring and advancement. Since law firms are less systematized and more personality driven, implicit bias is likely even more pronounced. Statistical evidence shows hiring and workplace performance is often based on the discretion of just a few interviewers or bosses who more or less favor people of the same race and gender (See BlocQuebecois' Moneyball Thread for more info) . 

At the same time, my personal inclination is that setting hard representation targets and measures based on categorical labelling like proportional hiring/advancement will paradoxically lead to tribalism in the workplace rather than inclusion. Every racial federation will read statistical underrepresentation as evidence of discrimination, and will make demands. If not them, then lateral professionals and clients from business or real-life who look at a law firm and see underrepresentation and drum up bad press. The outcome in the end is what a lot of conservative detractors of affirmative action policies e.g. Brett Kavanaugh and others called a "racial spoils game" where people compete within their census race category (Maybe the worse example to cite, because I will never take Brett Kavanaugh seriously). 

I have a lot of criticism with how conservatives deal with representation, but I do think there's some truth. Dividing people into bureaucratic categories certainly does have a cultural effect where people will reinforce that identity and divide themselves along those lines. Anecdotally this is my observation of US colleges since alot of highschoolers invariably become aware of census race early on due to the role that race plays in admissions. While here you have ethnic and cultural clubs, the US has stronger lines split along census race categories. E.g. South Asians and East Asians ("Asian" census category) in my experience seem to cluster together, alongside "non-white Hispanic" Latinos from all nationalities and so-on. I remember going to parties and weddings in the US where the host or couple's college friends were primarily one US Race Category, while their work or childhood friends are usually more diverse. I can honestly see the same trends happening in law, where racial divisions becomes more pronounced due to the failure to address systemic bias and racism while the counter-response are initiatives to push for proportional representation and advancement among racial and ethnic lines.

This is where the complexity of everything comes in. This tribalization and re-segregation among ethnic lines comes when society is much more diverse and mixed. And it comes just as Canadian law started making pushes for female representation in upper positions in law due to significant underrepresentation. It really is a catch-22, and in my view reflects a society that has done too little to address actual inequality and unequal treatment. But I don't see how policies built upon categorical divisions like racially-proportionate representation or gender proportionality won't lead to social splintering, since people will maximize opportunities for themselves instinctively and will oppose anything that hinders it and by extension will push for policies that advance their group identity if rewards becomes racially-based. There is no easy answer since this problem permeates every society where there are grounds for social divisions (e.g. in a caste-based society or tribal society, divisions will be caste or tribe based or perhaps geographically-based). I am still out of habit quite libertarian about this, and think the best outcome would be to create a system where people get fair outcomes and fair treatment and are individually assessed, but have no idea how such a thing could be created. 

 

Edited by TheCryptozoologist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pendragon
  • Lawyer

As a visible minority, I really don't give a rat's ass if my ethnic group is proportionally represented in law. I have a good position that I enjoy and make decent money and that is enough for me. BIPOC individuals in his country have all the resources they need to go to law school and achieve success. Class profiles indicate that some schools like U of T and Osgoode have up to 50% visible minorities. I'm more interested in socioeconomic status as it pertains to higher education achievement. I've heard people whine about their so-called disadvantages in life because of their skin colour, when they live in 4000 square foot homes and parents teach at a university or treat patients at a hospital. It's like those Bond graduates that whine about their disadvantages in the Canadian job market when they forked out 200k for their degree through trust funds. I know a lot of BIPOC lawyers and law students in this profession and many of them are from well-off socioeconomic backgrounds. I've had more in common with the Caucasian that grew up on a farm in Northern Ontario, than I did law students and lawyers from my same racial background. 

A lot of people in this profession, including law firms, think they've solved the diversity issue by just increasing the number of coloured representation on their firm website. Well, dig a little deeper and you may find that many of these people are second/third generation Canadians and/or are white-washed and come from money. Clients don't just want lawyers that look like them, but who can empathize, identify, and share lived experiences. I honestly have not seen much of that from many BIPOC lawyers in this profession, which I think is often lost in the diversity conversation as people are only fixated on racial/gender representation. 

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

goonersfc
  • Law Student
31 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

BIPOC individuals in his country have all the resources they need to go to law school and achieve success.

Wow! Are you sure about that, bud? I have read some damning, inaccurate and problematic statements on this forum- but this is probably the one that stands out to me as being the most ridiculous of all. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, goonersfc said:

Wow! Are you sure about that, bud? I have read some damning, inaccurate and problematic statements on this forum- but this is probably the one that stands out to me as being the most ridiculous of all. 

 

 

I'd venture a guess that OP is either a troll or a really walled - off right winger. Check OP's post history; he/she/they is trying to incite something.

Edited by Thrive92
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

goonersfc
  • Law Student
3 minutes ago, Thrive92 said:

I'd venture a guess that OP is either a troll or a really walled - off right winger. Check OP's post history; he/she/they is trying to incite something.

Oh well!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pendragon
  • Lawyer
10 minutes ago, goonersfc said:

Wow! Are you sure about that, bud? I have read some damning, inaccurate and problematic statements on this forum- but this is probably the one that stands out to me as being the most ridiculous of all. 

I think so? We have a publicly funded education system here. If you want to pursue post-secondary studies, you have access to scholarships, bursaries, and provincial loans. If you need assistance with school, we have many tutoring services, academic help/writing centres, and office hours. The LSAT is certainly a barrier for racialized students, especially if English is not your primary language, but you can still do well on this test through prep courses, self-study, and tutoring services. I'm not sure what else you are looking for. I paid for my own education throughout university, worked in odd jobs, and still got a good GPA and LSAT score to get into a number of law schools. Even if you absolutely cannot crack the LSAT, there are some law schools here that prioritize GPA and you can find a program that you enjoy and will perform well in, and the grades will come. 

But, yea, keep going on about how visible minorities face many barriers to education and higher education achievement here. It's first generation Canadians and immigrants that are pursuing university education in higher numbers than the average person in Canada.

Edited by Pendragon
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

think so? We have a publicly funded education system here.

How does this mitigate the inequality that BIPOC suffer from relative to those who are better off in this country? Implying that BIPOC receives the same level of education as the rest of the Canadian population and using that as a way of saying that there are no barriers towards education for anyone in Canada becomes irrelevant when those in your school who have no lunch money and brought nothing from home are all BIPOC. Not saying that all BIPOC are suffering from such inequality, but those who are suffering from such inequality are disproportionately BIPOC

53 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

If you want to pursue post-secondary studies, you have access to scholarships, bursaries, and provincial loans.

Not for everyone, no. As someone whose family immigrated here from East Asia, I know of more than enough people in the same university that I went to who paid well over double what I paid simply because they are not Canadian citizens/PR. I doubt that their provincial loans would be able to cover all of the tuition.

 

53 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

The LSAT is certainly a barrier for racialized students, especially if English is not your primary language, but you can still do well on this test through prep courses, self-study, and tutoring services.

Not everyone in this country have the funds, resources nor the time to engage in the prep for LSAT.

 

53 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

I paid for my own education throughout university, worked in odd jobs, and still got a good GPA and LSAT score to get into a number of law schools.

It's great that you did this, but have you considered the fact that maybe there are those who may excel in their studies or LSAT should their financial barriers that are related to their racial/ethnic identities be mitigated?

The all - too common argument of "I was in that situation/someone was in that situation and made through it ok. So what is wrong with you?" is a bit stupid if you think about it: do you really think that because you are able to achieve something despite a challenging circumstance, others would have no trouble achieving the same thing? Have you considered the fact that perhaps it is the challenging circumstance (which in this case is the educational and financial barriers for BIPOC) that should be focused on in the first place, and not those who are not on par with your achievements?

53 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

Relative to the Canadian population as a whole, many minorities are now represented in the legal profession.

This is not true. Although this may be the case for those in the biggest racial/ethnic minority groups (over here where I live, that would be Chinese and South Asians), many other smaller minority groups are not proportionately represented in the legal profession. I remember volunteering for a legal pro bono clinic and a client told me that she specifically requested someone who is of the same race as her (which thankfully I was) due to her language barrier. I remember talking to her about the legal field in the region along with lawyers who are within our racial minority group, and she was barely able to find one who was too expensive, and then she gave up. So no, your statement is incorrect.

 

53 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

It's first generation Canadians and immigrants that are pursuing university education in higher numbers than the average person in Canada.

That's probably because that's literally one of the main reasons as to why they immigrated here in the first place. Do you really think these immigrant parents enjoy working for minimum wages for assholes (who are usually of the same ethnicity/race btw) who refuse to give them benefits and insurance, despite the years they put into the workplace? They do it in order to fund their children to university and an overall better life. It's no wonder why they would push their children into pursuing university so hard compared to non - immigrants.

Also, I thought that @goonersfc was responding to a statement that OP has made, and not you.

49 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

@Thrive92 Correct me if I'm wrong, but by "OP" you were referring to @TheCryptozoologist, yeah?

I think there's been confusion over that because @goonersfc was responding to @Pendragon.

Just throwing that out there before this becomes more of a cluster.

Yeah sorry about that confusion; I thought he/she/they was responding to OP, not @Pendragon

Edited by Thrive92
correction
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pendragon
  • Lawyer

@Thrive92, you raise relevant points. International student fees I think is a separate issue from this debate. Most international students I've met are quite wealthy in their home countries as they have to be to come to a place like Canada and spend over 100k to fund their education. I think provincial loans and bursaries reasonably cover domestic tuition fees. I agree that there are financial barriers one has to overcome in order to pursue higher education and law school, but I also don't think this is such an insurmountable obstacle as it is sometimes made out to be. Many students work part-time jobs and do co-op/internships during school to help pay for their education. 

An LSAT prep course costs $1000-2000. If you don't want to take a prep course, you can self-study with a budget of a couple hundred dollars with some books and practice tests. Most people study 3-6 months for the test, many while working full-time, so I don't think saying you don't have any time to study for this test is reasonable. 

To see if there is adequate representation I think one should a) look at the demographics of their area/province and then b) look at the lawyer/law student demographics in that location. I find blanket statements saying the legal profession as a whole lacks representation isn't helpful. People criticize UBC for having less Black students but if you look at Vancouver's Black population as a whole, the numbers are in line. If you are a part of a minority group which represents only 1% or 5% of the total population in your area, then it is reasonable to expect there to only be that amount of lawyers from your community as well. In this regard, I don't see a lack of representation; what I do see is that a lot of BIPOC lawyers are pursuing corporate/commercial and related areas of law where there client base is largely upper middle class and wealthy clientele. It does not surprise me that a poor or lower income client cannot find lawyers in their community that will represent them at affordable rates, but this is an access to justice issue, and not necessarily one where there is a lack of representation of lawyers in that community. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Toad
  • Articling Student

I would like to see a bit more context for some of those numbers.

It appears as if recent years of call have more POC than their relative share of the population. The disparity in the overall population of lawyers in favor of white people seems to come from senior calls who graduated when Canada was 85-95% white. If my memory is correct, most Canadian law schools now have more POC than their relative share of the population.

The "Status by Racialization" chart would be interesting if controlled for age. The average age for a law firm partner is in their 50s and would disproportionately represent the demographics of those who graduated in the mid 90s or earlier. 

I'm actually fairly optimistic that the legal field will proportionately diversify fairly naturally over the coming decades in terms of race. I don't think it is going to require some sort of weird jockeying for status among racial groups. That being said, I am generally in favour of policies that support groups who are lagging behind. 


 

Quote

 

This is where the complexity of everything comes in. This tribalization and re-segregation among ethnic lines comes when society is much more diverse and mixed. 

 

Regarding the link where more Americans are identifying themselves as multiracial -- 

The main factor causing the massive increase in multi racial identity is not a sudden shift in how people are identifying themselves on a societal scale, it is mostly because they changed the census questions to allow people to more accurately represent how they identify themselves. Most Latinos identify as mixed race and they now can accurately state that on the census. 

Edited by Toad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

Most international students I've met are quite wealthy in their home countries as they have to be to come to a place like Canada and spend over 100k to fund their education. I think provincial loans and bursaries reasonably cover domestic tuition fees.

I agree that there are alot of international students who are from affluent families who are not afraid to show that they come from money with their bentleys or aston martins. However, I believe they are in the minority; they are only the most visible because of their age, racial background, and their visible wealth. Many international students who fall under the BIPOC category are from middle class families whose parents are pushing their retirement plans just so that they can work a few years longer in order to pay for the massively unsubsidized tuition from Canadian universities. With weight of your familial wealth spent on you like that, I would buckle under the pressure to fail, or even get mediocre grades in school.

As for domestic tuition fees, the provincial loans does a "decent" job in its amounts; it covers the tuition, sure. The increased amount of grants compared to the actual loans is good to see, but keep in mind that many BIPOC need pretty much every cent that they can get in order to not only pay for their tuition, but to contribute to their families. It is not uncommon for BIPOC to receive student loans and work part time while fulfilling their full - time studies. Although it is definitely doable, such strain on a student may not produce the best results, whether it be for school grades, or their work performance.

40 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

To see if there is adequate representation I think one should a) look at the demographics of their area/province and then b) look at the lawyer/law student demographics in that location. I find blanket statements saying the legal profession as a whole lacks representation isn't helpful. People criticize UBC for having less Black students but if you look at Vancouver's Black population as a whole, the numbers are in line. If you are a part of a minority group which represents only 1% or 5% of the total population in your area, then it is reasonable to expect there to only be that amount of lawyers from your community as well.

Similarly to what that client in the pro bono clinic had experienced, I stand by the fact even with the proportion of the specific BIPOC group compared to the rest of the regional population accounted for, there are many racial/ethnic groups that are vastly underrepresented in the legal field (at least in the province where I live). I do not want to specify which particular ethnicity group I belong in, but there are more than 70,000 people of the same ethnicity who are living in and around the area that I reside in, and I have found three lawyers of the same ethnicity practicing in the same region. I'm sure there are more than that, but the fact that I am having difficulty finding them should indicate that the under-representation of some BIPOC in the legal field is a very real and present issue. 

Edited by Thrive92
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheCryptozoologist
  • Articling Student
2 hours ago, Thrive92 said:

I'd venture a guess that OP is either a troll or a really walled - off right winger. Check OP's post history; he/she/they is trying to incite something.

Wow this is a goddamn stupid take. Something tells me you have very simplistic views of people in real life.

Here is a possibility. You can have complex views of subjects without falling into either political camp. I already said racism and implicit bias is a big thing, but I don't see how the current approach of equating skin color with oppression and class is good. 

1 hour ago, Yogurt Baron said:

Sorry, I got confused about who was who.

 

2 hours ago, goonersfc said:

Snip

While white overrepresentation is clear and evident, and a problem, I do agree with lots of things @Pendragon said. That you cannot make these simplistic assumptions on race because class and other barriers impact white people. Regardless, Poor people of any race are essentially fucked and underrepresented since law school tends to be much more upper middle class. Just an example, one thing that I noticed in law was just how many of my white classmates were from generationally lawyer families. More than half of my white (and a handful of black and other) friends from Toronto have parents who are lawyers and came from a clearly insulated class of people without any real understanding of how the other half lives.

For what its worth, I am statistically part of the second least represented group (Southeast Asian) and grew up in a rough city with friends that represented just about every racial group in Canada. Maybe out of 20 close middle school friends I was the only that went to university and I was certainly privileged since I had a stable family of business owners who was able to move to a nicer area and had well-off extended family. A fair portion of my friends got into drug dealing or habits in high school and beyond and it wasn't unusual to see them carrying guns and knives in their teenage years. Many were poor whites or black raised by single mothers and had all the family disadvantages I did not have. I keep up with maybe one or two of them but frankly don't know where many of them are. A few are probably dead. Some went to the local technical college. Many grew out of it but don't have anything resembling a life involving KD to JD.

I am a big believer in standarized testing as a great equalizer for this reason. Its one of the ways poor students are able to get ahead without family connections. I went to law school only because I killed the LSAT and hit top 1% and never really thought about lawyering. Similar to a white friend of mine who was one of the top grads in my class who came from a less well off background and she faced hardship that most other law students did not.

will probably get lumped with privileged shits like @Thrive92because lawyers and people are judgemental and our reality just lumps people by superficial things like race. But frankly I am amazed about how out of tune most lawyers and academics are and how different their reality is since they preach from a perch. Example I am a believer in tough on crime because I grew up in a city where every issue between boys was solved with fighting and its not rare to hear somebody get hospitalized with knives or bats. Out of touch defund the police types will just let all hell break loose and make everything worse since juvie and police kept people from shooting each other (guns were not uncommon).

Lots of lawyers simply do not understand what makes people do what they do and live in a bubble. I've been around all types of people and still can navigate hoods as much as I can navigate hipster cafes but don't carry the delusions alot of educated types do.

Edited by TheCryptozoologist
  • Like 2
  • LOL 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TheCryptozoologist said:

I don't see how the current approach of equating skin color with oppression and class is good. 

the current approach of equating skin color with oppression and class in Canada is not to be judged as "good" or "bad", its the objective truth. Your personal opinion of whether or not to adopt this "approach" is good or bad is irrelevant.

10 minutes ago, TheCryptozoologist said:

I am a big believer in standarized testing as a great equalizer for this reason. Its one of the ways poor students are able to get ahead without family connections. I went to law school only because I killed the LSAT and hit top 1% and never really thought about lawyering.

This has proven to be incorrect in many other countries, not just in Canada. Standardized testing for everyone, including the university entrance exams in China and South Korea, is still heavily influenced by wealth as those who come from wealthy families and backgrounds are able to afford tutors and in some cases bypass the exam altogether by having the funds to send the student to universities overseas that may provide a namesake advantage over any university in the home country.

 

10 minutes ago, TheCryptozoologist said:

I mean I will probably get lumped with privileged shits like @Thrive92 because lawyers and people are judgemental and our reality just lumps people by superficial things like race.

This was good, but try again. Although I am much better off than many others in this country and my family had not much hardships compared to those who were in the lower classes than we were, "privileged" would not be the term I would use to describe myself.

Edited by Thrive92
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheCryptozoologist
  • Articling Student
1 minute ago, Thrive92 said:

Snip

Its almost like you didn't even read a single thing I wrote. 

Edited by TheCryptozoologist
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TheCryptozoologist said:

Its almost like you didn't even read a single thing I wrote. 

I literally quoted your words that I have discussed.

But it's fine; feel free to consider me as a "privileged shit" and ignore my contribution to this thread. I really don't mind

Edited by Thrive92
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheCryptozoologist
  • Articling Student
1 hour ago, Toad said:

Snip

I agree with your points but I do think that simplistically labelling people and trying to fix things by quotas does a very poor job of accounting for how complex and split people are within a category. And its why I am a firm believer in prioritizing economic representation or rather than simply creating superficial representation or crafting the narrative that its the only relevant thing. 

Just an example, alot of law students I met from minority backgrounds are from African immigrants or specific Caribbean nationalities but I meet fewer from Jamaican working class backgrounds. Same with Asian or Indian representation, its tipped towards ethnic or community groups that are already somewhat highly educated but doesn't account for within group economic and life differences. Likely also same with poor white kids from Thunder Bay a small town or from working class East European immigrant backgrounds vs. wealthy elites from Toronto. 

Edited by TheCryptozoologist
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BlockedQuebecois
  • Lawyer
56 minutes ago, TheCryptozoologist said:

You can have complex views of subjects without falling into either political camp.

I don’t think anyone would call your views “complex”. 

  • Like 3
  • LOL 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheCryptozoologist
  • Articling Student
21 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

I don’t think anyone would call your views “complex”. 

Thanks for your valued contribution.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

I found one for BC, although it is not as detailed as the Ontario one:

https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/our-initiatives/equity-and-diversity-centre/demographics-of-the-legal-profession/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disbarred
  • Law Student
7 hours ago, Pendragon said:

So it looks like roughly equal representation compared to population in 2009-13 and a slight over representation afterwards. Very interesting, not what I expected

Link to comment
Share on other sites

epeeist
  • Lawyer

A few general thoughts [EDIT: addendum below]:

1. Broader than law;

2. Not "every" group is underrepresented in law - from a quick glance at U of T (as a proxy, I realize others different) Asian students are overrepresented relative to % of the Canadian population. Thinking about Harvard law suit and elsewhere, anti-Asian discrimination in admissions (generally, not law specifically) - I'm in broad agreement with the socio-economic aspect being >> minority status generally in terms of access and opportunity;

3. It starts in elementary school if not earlier - I wouldn't blame law schools (or medical schools, or engineering schools, etc.) so much. To suggest that public schooling means everyone gets equally prepared and has equal opportunity for law school (or university generally) is ridiculous. Just read up on correlation between income and performance of public schools (either by region or household). Even if hypothetically there were no difference between schools - that's hypothetically, I don't believe it - a household with a higher income is more likely to be able to afford a tutor at any grade level, extracurricular activities that round out applications, better computer, kids not worried about being hungry because not enough food, etc. And there's always the variation even within a school as to quality of teachers.

4. For a similar reason, affirmative action - while a good thing generally (I support e.g. Y% of new hires must be a particular group, not "no white men will be considered until we've reached a state of utopian equality") - is not a fix because the problem in access and opportunity started years earlier. If there are fewer X group applicants for a job because there are fewer X group graduates of law school because there are fewer X group university students because there are fewer X group high school graduates with the marks and extracurriculars to attend university (plus even if they could affordability problems even with support), the problem begins when the X group people are children and that's where the fix has to start, not wait until after graduating law school and then bemoan the lack of X group candidates...

 

EDIT:

In fairness, and contrary to my view as expressed above, I happened to go to simplejustice blog and saw this piece, which though not on this point (looking at demographics of authors), included some quotes from a recent John McWhorter NYT piece that, in the US context, suggests that attitudes towards education among black youth are more significant than poverty/income:

"...

Fortunately, John McWhorter coincidentally provides some background that may well offer insight to the “why” question The Nation skips over.

Quote

 

Black kids tend not to do as well in school as white kids, statistically. But just what is the “racism” that causes this particular disparity?

It isn’t something as plain and simple as the idea that all Black kids go to underfunded schools — it’s a little 1980s to think that’s all we’re faced with. School funding is hugely oversold as a reason for schools’ underperformance, and the achievement disparity persists even among middle-class Black kids.

And middle-class Black kids are not just a mere sliver: Only about a third of Black students are poor. Yet the number of Black students admitted to top-level universities, for example, is small — so small that policies changing admissions standards are necessary for such schools to have a representative number of them on campus. This is fact, shown at countless institutions over the past 30 years such as the University of Michigan and recently Harvard. The key question is what justifies the policies.

 

McWhorter goes on to explain that young black people have a cultural constraint about associating education with being “white,” and even though they may be smart, come from a good family and go to a good school, they do not value education and consequently do not achieve. This, McWhorter contends, is the legacy of school segregation, and so it is a manifestation of white racism...." [emphasis added]

https://blog.simplejustice.us/2021/09/12/the-missing-why/#more-47525

Edited by epeeist
additional info
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Salazar
  • Law Student
On 9/11/2021 at 12:20 AM, Thrive92 said:

the current approach of equating skin color with oppression and class in Canada is not to be judged as "good" or "bad", its the objective truth. Your personal opinion of whether or not to adopt this "approach" is good or bad is irrelevant.

What do you mean by this? How can a single approach or theory of how skin colour affects Canadians (a vastly complex topic) be considered the "objective truth"? To me this is akin to saying that a particular economic theory is the "objective truth". As much as you may agree with the theories of Keynes, Friedman or Marx, describing them as "objectively true" isn't accurate. "Objectively true" is more for statements like "the Earth revolves around the Sun" or "water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at sea level."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By accessing this website, you agree to abide by our Terms of Use. YOU EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOU WILL NOT CONSTRUE ANY POST ON THIS WEBSITE AS PROVIDING LEGAL ADVICE EVEN IF SUCH POST IS MADE BY A PERSON CLAIMING TO BE A LAWYER. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.