The Courts continue to find that 'reverse discrimination' and 'racial preferences' are illegal!  Here are some resources and recent cases restoring a color-blind society!

Equal treatment, NOT equal results!

Site Index / Menu.

The Law in the News

See the controversy over the use of Racial Testers.   Is this fraud?

BACK:  ALL the News Index.
The Racial Paradox of the Corporate Law Firm (June 2006)

          Most of the nation's leading law firms aggressively recruit minority lawyers in the name of a vaguely defined "diversity" policy.

          But a new study by Professor Richard Sander (UCLA Law) shows that these "diversity hires" have been hired under lower academic standards than most of the new white hires at those firms.  As a consequence, according to Sander's study, young, black lawyers leave the big firms at two to three times the rate of whites.  Very few black "diversity hires" stick around long enough to make it to the "partner track" at the very firms which so aggressively recruited them.

          Once again, Professor Richard Sander has used objective, statistical data to show that the intended beneficiaries of "affirmative action" (racial quotas) actually are harmed in their careers by such "race-sensitive" policies.

          Two years ago Professor Sander -- a lifelong liberal democrat -- published a controversial but dead-on accurate research paper that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that racial quotas, er, affirmative action in law school admissions actually result in fewer black lawyers.

Racial Quotas Hurt Black Law Students' Chances of Success (Dec. 2004)

          In a groundbreaking study of law school admission data, Professor Richard H. Sander analyzes empirical evidence that racial preferences (racial quotas) in law school admissions actually hurt the chances of success of black law school students.

          Sander's study is titled "A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools".

          Sander's study shows that racial preferences in law school admissions result in a counterproductive mismatch between the academic abilities of black beneficiaries of racial preferences and the law schools to which these students are admitted under "affirmative action". 


Pennsylvania to Publish Racial Conviction Rates (08/10/00)

[Editor's Note:  The national mania for "good" racial profiling, i.e., disclosure of all criminal defendants' races and genders, has gone beyond police departments and has now infected the U.S. Court system. 

          This story documents how the Pennsylvania state sentencing commission has caved in to the "good profiling" demands of the NAACP, and will now publish the race and gender of all criminal defendants.  The stated purpose of this invasion of privacy is to "detect racial bias in sentencing", but this action by the Pennsylvania commission avoids the question of whether higher conviction rates within a racial or gender group might actually reflect a higher rate of criminal behavior within that group.

          The NAACP would like us to believe that conviction rates should be tied to "proportional representation", i.e., blacks should not be convicted at a higher rate than whites relative to their proportion in the general population, regardless of any compelling evidence or proof of greater criminal activity relative to whites. --Editor]

          "Judges' sentencing records that list the gender and race of every criminal defendant will be made public as the result of a decision reached Wednesday by a state commission.

          "The release will give researchers, reporters and watchdog groups unprecedented access to the records of individual judges and will help determine whether sentences of blacks and whites or men and women are consistent.  "It opens up the door to what we really want - to find disparities in the sentencing," said Charles T. Stokes, president of the Pennsylvania State Conference of NAACP Branches. He said the NAACP may use the records to issue report cards on whether judges appear biased.

          "In February, the commission agreed for the first time to release sentencing data for every judge in the state, but race and gender identifiers for defendants were not included.

          "The sentencing commission is an advisory committee to the state Legislature and is charged with monitoring criminal sentences in Pennsylvania. It collects reports of all sentences imposed in the state along with information about defendants, including prior records, severity of offenses and other factors judges use to decide sentences."

          The new race-based sentencing report will include the names of the judges as well as the conviction rates within those judge's courts by race and gender.  The specious presumption is that if blacks in one judge's courtroom are convicted at a higher rate than whites then that judge is practicing racism.

Based upon the Tribune-Review story 08/10/00 by rich Cholodofsky.
[link ]


Pennsylvania sentencing data to list race, gender (08/10/00)

          "A state commission voted unanimously yesterday to release sentencing records listing the race and gender of every criminal defendant in Pennsylvania and the names of the judges who sentenced them. The release will, for the first time, enable researchers, reporters and watchdog groups to study the records of individual judges and determine if they are consistent in the sentences they hand down. "It opens up the door to what we really want -- to find disparities in the sentencing," said Charles T. Stokes, president of the Pennsylvania State Conference of NAACP Branches. He said the NAACP may use the records to issue report cards on whether judges appear biased.

          "The Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing voted to release the records in response to requests from The Associated Press, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Centre County Judge Charles Brown, one of four judges on the 11-member panel, cautioned that no records could reflect all of the factors judges consider when they hand down a sentence. But, he said, the records should be made public because they are paid for with public money."  (Associated Press via Post-Gazette.Com, 08/10/00 by AP reporter Tim Molloy)
[link ]

Racial Testers:
Federal Government Employs Secret Agents to Convict YOU of Discrimination
(updated 07/07/00)

(Adversity.Net Special Report)  Your federal government employs "secret agents" -- undercover racial testers -- to tempt you into discriminating on the basis of race or gender.  To accomplish this the feds send more-or-less equally matched pairs of applicants -- one white and one "minority" -- to your firm or to your housing rental office.  The key is that these applicants (a) present falsified credentials (fake resumes and/or fake credit records); and (b) they have no intention of accepting your offer of employment or your offer of housing.  Also don't forget that they are funded by your tax dollars in this transparent sting operation.

          The practice is controversial, and many juries feel that this practice contsitutes illegal entrapment rather than racial discrimination.  Nonetheless, the boundless legal resources of the federal government (funded by your taxes) continue to prosecute these bogus cases of racial discrimination.
[link ]

(U.S. Supreme Court):
Special Report on High Court Hiring Practices!
  (March 1999)

          About one year ago the NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucus found another golden opportunity to exploit divisive racial politics: The Supreme Court of the United States law clerks!

          The racial special interests noticed that very few of High Court's law clerks were minorities, and only slightly more were women. Black special interests really didn't care that the High Court hires the most qualified applicants for the prestigious clerkships, and those same racial interests really didn't want to hear about the fact that the number of minorities applying for the jobs was almost non-existent.

          At first, the justices hung tough: Rehnquist published a letter to the Congressional Black Caucus which said, in effect, "Buzz off! We're hiring the most qualified out of those that apply!"

          But, in the face of persistent harassment from the liberal democrats in the House of Representatives, Congress finally got Justice David Souter and Justice Clarence Thomas to crack - at least a little.   See "Colorblind Justice at the Supreme Court?" for current news articles in this controversy.  (Chief Justice Rehnquist's letter to the racial lobby is included.)

Clinton Urges Law Profession to
Promote Quotas and Preferences!

Clinton calls upon American Bar Association to hire fewer white lawyers (July/Aug. 1999)

          Hoping in vain to be perceived as John F. Kennedy reincarnate, in the summer of 1999 Bill Clinton cajoled and threatened America's legal profession to (a) Do more pro bono work for preferred minorities instead of white defendants; and (b) Hire fewer white lawyers and instead hiring more "lawyers of color". 

          Clinton presumes his skewed strategy of promoting quotas and preferences in the legal profession will somehow magically result in racial equality.

END Legal News Main Page

Be sure to also visit ALL the News Index for hundreds of current news articles on reverse discrimination (sorted by subject and city).   Many of the news articles pertain to legal actions taken by victims of reverse discrimination.

Main Page
Older Stories
Colorblind at the
Supreme Court?
SPEECH: Clinton
Exhorts Lawyers
To Support Quotas
Legal Help Links

Main Site Index:

Go to Top of Page

by category
Contributions are tax-deductible

and case studies
and Definitions
Firms and Resources
GO:  Home Page
Page Index
URL's and page names for site

National opinion

How Quotas are Enforced
What's Hot!

D.O.J. Requires It!

News Analysis

Copyright 2002 Adversity.Net, Inc., an IRS 501(c)(3) tax-exempt educational organization.  For problems or questions regarding this web contact    Last updated: July 19, 2006.

Go to Adversity.Net Home Page

*  We use the term reverse discrimination reluctantly and only because it is so widely understood.  In our opinion there really is only one kind of discrimination.