Elena Kagan isn't real big on diversity. 28 of 29 faculty members she hired at Harvard were white!

-I just read these articles for the first time today. This is new information for me and one more reason why President Obama should not nominate her to the Supreme Court. I find it hard to believe that anyone who is not a bigot, or who is an advocate of diversity, would only hire one non-white person to the Harvard Law School faculty. This is the 21st century, not 1960! I think any DU'er in her position would have found many qualified people of color and women to hire for that faculty. BBI-

Colored Demos:
A blog on law, politics, democracy, culture, race
Some Questions About Elena Kagan
By Professor Guy-Uriel Charles of Duke Law School
April, 22, 2010

Granting that we know very little about Kagan, what do we make of the facts that we do know? Here are some data that gives me pause about Kagan. When Elena Kagan was Dean of the Harvard Law School, she hired 29 tenured or tenure-track faculty members. But she did not hire a single black, Latino, or American Indian faculty member. Not one, not even a token. Of the 29 people she hired, all of them with one exception were white. Under Kagan's watch Harvard hired 28 white faculty members and one Asian American.

One of Kagan's purported qualifications for the Supreme Court is that she is a consensus builder. The chief evidence for that contention is that she broke the hiring logjam at Harvard and made it possible for Harvard to hire conservatives. It might sound absurd to some, but I will accept the point that one of Kagan's chief selling points is that she assured that Harvard did not discriminate ideologically. I am personally gratified that Harvard Law School is not closed to conservative faculty members. I support ideological diversity and would not want to see qualified individuals discriminated against on the basis of ideology.

But what about people of color? How could she have brokered a deal that permitted the hiring of conservatives but resulted in the hiring of only white faculty? Moreover, of the 29 new hires, only six were women. So, she hired 23 white men, 5 white women, and one Asian American woman. Please do not tell me that there were not enough qualified women and people of color. That's a racist and sexist statement. It cannot be the case that there was not a single qualified black, Latino or Native-American legal academic that would qualify for tenure at Harvard Law School during Elena Kagan's tenure. To believe otherwise is to harbor troubling racist views.

Third, what is the justification for putting someone on the Supreme Court without a demonstrated commitment to opening barriers for women and people of color? Kagan's performance as Dean at Harvard raises doubts about her commitment to equality for traditionally disadvantaged groups. I am eager to be convinced that she is committed to full equality for marginalized groups, but I'd like to see the evidence. Moreover, what other questions would we have about Kagan if we knew more about her and her views?

Read the full article at:

http://coloreddemos.blogspot.com/2010/04/some-questions-about-elena-kagan.html


------------------------------------------------------


Friday, May 7, 2010
Law Professors Attack Kagan and White House on Racial Diversity

Four law professors have attacked Elena Kagan's record on diversity. While she was the Dean of Harvard Law School, only 3% of the professors the school hired were persons of color or women. This is a pretty abysmal record.

The four law professors are Guy-Uriel Charles, Duke Law School; Anupam Chander, University of California-Davis Davis School of Law; Luis Fuentes-Rohwer, Indiana University's School of Law; and Angela Onwuachi-Willig, University of Iowa College of Law. After sending a letter expressing their concerns regarding Kagan to the White House, the Obama administration responded indirectly by circulating a set of talking points that seek to defend Kagan's record. The talking points are fairly weak, as the professors explain in an article posted on Salon.com.

The White House does not dispute the low number of women and persons of color hired to tenure-track positions at Harvard during Kagan's deanship. Instead, the White House says the school hired persons of color and women as visitors and that the school could have extended offers that candidates declined. Visitorships, however, do not reflect a commitment to faculty diversity. Instead, they are typically temporary positions used to fill curricular needs while full-time faculty members are on-leave for various reasons. Also, the White House does not provide data regarding the number of persons of color and women to whom Harvard Law School extended offers (rather than hired) while Kagan was dean, and it seems odd that a large number of women and people of color would turn down offers to teach at Harvard.

http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2010/05/law-professors-attack-kagan-and-white.html


---------------------------------------------------



The White House's Kagan talking points are wrong. We questioned Harvard Law's diversity record under Elena Kagan. The White House pushed back. But they got it wrong
By Guy-Uriel Charles, Anupam Chander, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer, and Angela Onwuachi-Willig
May 7, 2010

Unfortunately, the White House’s defense of the solicitor general’s hiring record while she was Dean at Harvard is surprisingly weak.

To begin, and most notably, the White House does not dispute our basic facts. When Kagan was dean of Harvard Law School, four-out-of-every five hires to its faculty were white men. She did not hire a single African American, Latino, or Native American tenured or tenure track academic law professor. She hired 25 men, all of whom were white, and seven women, six of whom were white and one Asian American. Just 3 percent of her hires were non-white -- a statistic that should raise eyebrows in the 21st Century.

These are the facts that the White House does not try to defend because these facts are indefensible. For those who think that more women and minorities qualified to serve on the Harvard Law faculty were simply nonexistent, one need only look at Harvard’s primary rival--Yale Law School. There Dean Harold Koh led the law school during almost the same period (Dean Koh, from 2004 to 2009, and Dean Kagan, from 2003 to 2009). Dean Koh hired far fewer faculty members--just ten--but he still managed to hire nearly as many women (5 of 10 at 50 percent), and just as many minorities (1 of 10 at 10 percent) as Dean Kagan.

The White House’s primary response -- like the magician performing a trick--is to point our attention elsewhere. The White House says the hiring numbers are misleading because they do not reflect the number of offers that Dean Kagan made to women and scholars of color. But this seems a bit hard to believe. Do women and people of color find a tenured or tenure-track professorship at Harvard Law School less attractive than white men? Do they really prefer to teach at less prestigious schools? Or if they only prefer not to teach at Harvard because of perceived hostilities to women and people of color, why is it that Kagan could somehow overcome these perceptions when it came to conservatives, but not women and people of color? After all, part of the praise for Kagan is that she made Harvard Law School welcoming again for conservatives—in this case, conservative white men.

In order to assess whether Dean Kagan effectively reached out to women and scholars of color, we need the number of tenure and tenure-track offers she made to women and scholars of color. But the White House does not provide us the number of tenure and tenure-track offers that Dean Kagan made to women and scholars of color. In fact, they provide everything but those numbers. An honest defense would provide those numbers in the first instance. (The White House memo implicitly cites the privacy of the individuals who received offers as a basis for refusing to release names -- but we wonder how many law professors would be embarrassed by the public revelation that they turned down a Harvard Law School offer.)

In a sleight of hand, the White House instead provides the statistics for the number of visiting offers made under Dean Kagan. A visiting offer, however, is hardly tantamount to an offer to join the tenured faculty. Many visits are not offered with an eye towards permanent appointment. In other words, "visiting professor offers" without actual offers for permanent hire do nothing to increase meaningful faculty diversity. Many visits are made simply because the institution needs a temporary person to teach a class; law schools call these "podium" visits. Moreover, many visitors are foreign law professors who are temporarily rounding out the school’s curricular offerings. These foreign law professors could conceivably be cast as "minorities" in the American scheme, but such casting would be extremely misleading as many of these professors do not share the history and experiences of people of color in the United States and may not even identify as racial minorities, especially if they are part of the controlling majority or even minority in their own country.

Read the full article at:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/2010/05/07/law_professors_kagan_white_house/

If Obama picks her we're supposed to trust Obama and then get in line and not question his choice and vigorously defend him and his infinite wisdom at all costs.

The Latest on Elena Kagan
by Glenn Greenwald
May 8, 2010

Perhaps most revealing of all: a new article in The Daily Caller reports on growing criticisms of Kagan among "liberal legal scholars and experts" (with a focus on the work I've been doing), and it quotes the progressive legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky as follows: "The reality is that Democrats, including liberals, will accept and push whomever Obama picks." Yesterday on Twitter, Matt Yglesias supplied the rationale for this mentality: "Argument will be simple: Clinton & Obama like and trust , and most liberals (myself included) like and trust Clinton & Obama."

Just think about what that means. If the choice is Kagan, you'll have huge numbers of Democrats and progressives running around saying, in essence: "I have no idea what Kagan thinks or believes about virtually anything, and it's quite possible she'll move the Court to the Right, but I support her nomination and think Obama made a great choice." In other words, according to Chemerinksy and Yglesias, progressives will view Obama's choice as a good one by virtue of the fact that it's Obama choice. Isn't that a pure embodiment of mindless tribalism and authoritarianism? Democrats love to mock the Right for their propensity to engage in party-line, close-minded adherence to their Leaders, but compare what conservatives did with Bush's selection of Harriet Miers to what progressives are almost certain to do with Obama's selection of someone who is, at best, an absolute blank slate.

One of the very first non-FISA posts I ever wrote that received substantial attention (uniformly favorable attention from progressives) was this post, from February, 2006, about the cult of personality that subsumed the Right during the Bush era. The central point was that conservatives supported anything and everything George Bush did, regardless of how much it comported with their alleged beliefs and convictions, because loyalty to him and their Party, along with a desire to keep Republicans in power, subordinated any actual beliefs. Even Bill Kristol -- in a 2006 New York Times article describing how Bruce Bartlett had been ex-communicated from the conservative movement for excessively criticizing George Bush -- admitted that personal allegiance to Bush outweighed conservative principles in the first term and that "Bush was the movement and the cause."

To say that "Democrats, including liberals, will accept and push whomever Obama picks," based on the rationale that "Clinton & Obama like and trust her, and most liberals (myself included) like and trust Clinton & Obama" -- even if they know nothing about her, even if she might move the Court to the Right -- seems to me to be an exact replica of what I described four years ago.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/05/08-6

Attacking the messenger is no substitute for that.

He's replaced Bill Maher as the bogeyman of the week.

and even when I don't he is the consistent one, not me. I admittedly have issues where I allow my own personal biases and opinions change my position on something which when the situation were reversed with the parties I would not support it. Greenwald does not.

But it doesn't matter. People won't actually defend Kagan on her merits or on her record (or lack thereof). Instead of addressing people's concerns they'll shoot the messenger.

This whole line about his "support" of Citizens United that people on here are trotting out as somehow proof that Greenwald is wrong about her and as such that means we should all support her (as though those of us that don't like Kagan as a nominee are only doing so because of his opinion).

I have the feeling Greenwald on Kagan is going to be Firedoglake on Healthcare again whereby people on here are more vigorously going after a blogger than after the people actually in positions of power.

The public has no say in her confirmation process, so technically nothing we say matters one whit.

Guess there are some on the supposed left that have learned the same tricks.

And set back progressive causes indefinitely. How conservative is she? Well we do not really know because she has done very little except be an administrative type.

Well I can't stand Obama any more anyway so this next betrayal of liberals and progressives will not surprise me at all but it will be the nail in the coffin of my ever voting for him ever again.

but you magically know she is a "shitty choice":eyes:

we'd like someone with a more solid and unequivocal progressive record?

How about we'd simply like to know the person who is going to take the place of a solid liberal voice on the court will also be a solid liberal voice? Without having to connect dots or read between lines or (worse) take it on faith.

The republicans held Bush to that standard and did not blindly support Harriet Miers because they weren't willing to take it on faith and trust that she would be a strong conservative voice without a solid legal track record. So why is it "smearing" for progressives to expect the same consideration.

Don't get me wrong, I'll hear her out if she's the nominee and will go over her record and her writings where they exist. If she comes out in support of things I hold dearly and feel strongly about then she will have my support and I'll shout it from the rooftops and defend her as vigorously as anyone else does. I'm heartened by what I've read about Citizens United, but that's hardly the only case out there and hardly the only one that matters (as important as it is).

But I sure as shit am not going to support her and approve of her simply because Obama nominates her and there's this mistaken belief that I'm supposed to follow orders right or wrong. And if it turns out she has some very conservative views I'm not going to buy the "She'll pull Kennedy left argument.

And for the record, this diversity issue isn't a non-starter to me. I'd like to hear more about it but that's not the sole reason I would have issues with her nomination.

That is a legitimate complaint.

she isn't a 'shitty choice' because your hero nominated her.

"Tricks?"

"Supposed left?"

Is this a joke?

Pattern.

Projection.

;)

Traitors. All of them.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Attack the messenger, always.

I trust the professional judgment of the Dean of Harvard Law School. Do you want to have the Dean of Harvard Law giving candidates believed to be less qualified a job simply because of their race?

How would giving minorities a job because they are minorities be anything less than racist?

Bye bye affirmative action. What ever were we thinking?

So we are to accept now the "reverse racism" propaganda?

When we are done dismantling every single thing that the Democratic party once stood for, of what value will it be to win over the Republicans?

Let's walk through the argument for affirmative action, shall we?

- Minority applicants and women have been denied fair and equal access to positions and jobs everywhere.

Now of course if you do not agree with that, then there is no sense reading any more of this.

- This has not only harmed the minority people and women, it has also deprived all of us of the contributions and talents from the people in the excluded group.

- Talent is just as likely to be found among people in the excluded group as in the dominant group - white males. Any thinking on this other than that is inherently racist and sexist, or nothing ever could be.

- White makes have a wider range of opportunities available to them.

- People of color and women have a more difficult time attaining the same level of success when compared to white males, must work harder, and are held to a higher standard.

- Therefore, it is false to say that we must choose between hiring the best candidate and hiring a minority candidate, since there will be more talent available in the minority group then there is in the dominant group, everything else being equal.

The Dean of Harvard Law School did and used her professional judgment to determine who the best candidates were. I guess you know better than the Dean of Harvard Law School about who is best suited to work there. I tend to believe the Dean of Harvard Law School analysis of the candidates over your uninformed idle speculation about their qualifications.

OK.

For all I know the best applicants were given the job. I didn't say otherwise. I responded to your comments.

If you agree with what I posted, then there is no cause for contention. If you don't, let's debate it.

What you posted is entirely meaningless to the situation at hand.

Were the people Kagen hired the best for the job? Neither of us knows so I'll trust the Dean of Harvard Law School. Until you find a better minority candidate that was turned down, the claims of racial bias are without merit.


"- Therefore, it is false to say that we must choose between hiring the best candidate and hiring a minority candidate, since there will be more talent available in the minority group then there is in the dominant group, everything else being equal."
In the professional opinion of the Dean of Harvard Law School you are wrong.

Appeals to really, really big important authority, then.

What the Dean said does not support your position. There could be a problem of no minority applicants having applied, there could be a problem of too few minority people having the experience, there could be a problem of two few minority people having the background. And all of that could be from racism. None of that is addressed - in so far as you have reported - by the Dean.

By the way, trusting the Dean does not equate to trusting you, which is what you imply and what is meant by "appeals to authority." I responded to what you said, not to the Dean. Defend what you said, don't hide behind the Dean.

"There could be a problem of no minority applicants having applied, there could be a problem of too few minority people having the experience, there could be a problem of two few minority people having the background. And all of that could be from racism"
So what part of that changes who the best candidate was? What part of that should justify hiring less qualified candidates?

I trust the professional opinion of the Dean of Harvard Law School.

I did not say that the most qualified candidates were not hired. I can't defend a position I did not take.

We are all here discussing Kagen's hiring practices.

I contend that Kagen used her best judgment when selecting potential hires. I also contend that being the Dean of Harvard Law School I trust that she would select the best candidates regardless of race or sex.

The only thing I have talked about is the basis for affirmative action, in response to your comments. On that I made my position quite clear.

If you agree with what I posted, then there is no basis for an argument between us. If you do not agree, then let's debate what I wrote. I can't defend what I didn't say or debate with you about positions I didn't take.

I have yet to state any position on "Kagen's hiring practices." You have, but I haven't.

In other words why did you respond to my posts about Kagen with a post that is unrelated to Kagen.

It was not intended to be. I am talking about your practices.

As opposed to hiring people who are less qualified for a job because of their race.

What specifically about hiring the best qualified candidate do you want to discuss?

Well?

Maybe Harvard did, and that is how it came down in the end.

But as someone who has served on a number of high level academic search committees, I can tell you that a result where virtually all hires are white male over a significant period would not be smiled upon by a responsible university's administration.

STOP trusting people, especially self-proclaimed authority figures from the Ivy League.

Christ, what clowns Americans are.

Just white people are qualified for such teaching positions at Harvard Law.

Someone advertises a job. You get 100 applications. You weed out all the applicants who don't meet minimal qualifications without regard to minority status because you want the best person for the job.

You end up with a pool of 10 people. If those 10 people are white, so be it. If 5 are white and 5 are minority, then so be it.

I look at progression as making people not discriminating against someone because of their race or color. That was the problem that people had 20-30 years ago. People in positions of hiring would purposely exclude minorities because of their beliefs in unfounded stereotypes. Modern day people in charge of hiring should no longer be EXCLUDING people based upon color or race or religion but I feel forced integration is just as much of a disservice as excluding people based upon color or race.

In a nutshell, people in positions of hiring should be allowed to pick and choose whomever they want provided they are not excluding anyone based upon color or race but forcing "quotas" of sorts is just as bad (reverse discrimination) as raced based exclusion.

If 100 white males should apply for job xyz, that is not the fault of the company.

But it does not refute what I posted.

No wonder there is no support for affirmative action anymore among Democrats. People don't understand it, and don't even know that they don't understand it.

People actually believe that it is whites and males who are persecuted, at least potentially, and at risk. Amazing. As I said, we most definitely need to thoroughly revisits the topics of sexism and racism.

There is absolutely zero possibility of successfully defeating the right wing when our positions are indistinguishable from their positions, and this "reverse discrimination" argument is in fact indistinguishable from their argument on the topic.

It is called "Affirmative Action."

Besides, if you got 100% white male applicants for a major post at Harvard, that would be rare indeed...I would go so far as to say it is impossible to imagine.

is hiring the most qualified person. The "affirmative action" part is taking additional steps to assure that the applicant pool is diverse and developing an impartial rating system prior to seeing the applicant pool. Giving preference on race or gender is simply not legal. Such characteristics could theoretically be legally used to break a tie, but in my 12 years of hiring, I have never encountered a tie. About 80 percent of my hires happen to have been women, but it has just worked out that way.

The fact that you have found more qualified applicants among women supports what I said.

in response to affirmative action.

Why should the Dean of Harvard Law School hire candidates they believe are not the best suited for the position?

No one has said that the most qualified applicant should not be hired. Rather, I said that affirmative action and hiring the most qualified applicant are not in opposition to each other. When they seem to be, or when people claim that they are, there is something else going on. That "something else" is most often racism.

Dean of Harvard Law School Dean of Harvard Law School Dean of Harvard Law School as an answer to any questions you haver about the nominee.

Of course I am not challenging any Dean of anything, nor Kagan. I am challenging the statements by people right here that spread racist ideas, promote right wing talking points, and betray a lack of even a rudimentary understanding of affirmative action. Democrats. Right here.

...."I did not say that she was racist, I'm just saying, well you know......wink wink......nudge nudge".

I think that the only situation in which any kind of case for affirmative action can be justified is when you believe that an applications body is *not* selecting the best qualified applicants, but discriminating on grounds of race. Discrimination is only "reverse" if it's applied where there is initially discrimination to reverse at the specific point where it is being applied - saying "this group is discriminated against elsewhere so we will discriminate in favour of them here" is not justifiable; saying "this group is being discriminated against here so we will put in a discriminatory counter measure" sometimes is.

In a field like appointments to academia, where committees can and do pay sufficient attention to each and every shortlisted applicant and have sufficiently good criteria that ranking then in order of how well-qualified for the job they are is at least semi possible, I think that there is usually a direct, one-or-the-other-but-not-both choice between always hiring the applicant you judge to be best qualified and applying any form of "reverse discrimination" or affirmative action. When you're paying this level of attention to each individual appointment, I think that if you believe someone is discriminating on grounds of race then the correct response is to get a new appointments committee rather than to institute some form of affirmative action.

I haven't yet seen any proof that this woman *was* discriminating on grounds of race - the fact that 28 of her 29 appointments were white is circumstantial evidence at best, and I suspect that if you look at the demographics of top-level lawyers in the USA it will turn out to be very weak circumstantial evidence at that. That said, I've only skimmed this issue - it may well be that proof/stronger evidence that she was (or, come to that, that she wasn't) that I haven't seen exists.

Not sure what you are saying. You are not refuting or talking about anything I said. I did not say that "this woman was discriminating on grounds of race."

In addition, I would like to say - very quickly and with my eyes looking up and to the right and with the index finger of my right hand at my temple - "the sum of the square roots of any two sides of an isosceles triangle is equal to the square root of the remaining side." Glad I visited the wizard.

Affirmative action is giving equal opportunity to all races and genders not giving to job to someone just because they are not white. If two people go in for a job and are equally qualified but different races, and the non white one is a better fit with the company or their personality meshes well with the company then hire them. But don't hire them just because they are not white. This recession has hit white men the hardest, and I know I know, we have had the upper hand for centuries. And you would be right. But, I have been highly qualified for positions and have been passed up for a "diversity" candidate. Bullshit. Race should be an option either way.

Do you really expect anyone to believe that in this day and age?

Can you provide some evidence that Kagan could have only hired an unqualified Black or Latino person at Harvard Law since qualified minorities just don't exist for these kinds of "jobs"?

And women and minorities tend to not be on that side of the political spectrum.

The myth of the "liberal professors" dominating academia and brainwashing the students is just a bunch of right wing hooey and has nothing to do with "diversity" of opinion, but is a shot across the bow to intimidate people and put a chill on academic freedom and free and open inquiry.

What is "conservative" law, anyway? Looking at the Supreme Court we can see that it means "siding with the prosecution" - which is not "law." It means rubber stamping executive authority, and favoring the wealthiest and most powerful people to come before the court. That isn't law either, it is a subverting and sabotaging of the law, it is using the law as a weapon against the less powerful and to increase and protect the power and wealth of those who already have power and wealth.

If the biggest, toughest, and wealthiest always win in court, there is no need for court at all, and no need for law. They win without the law or courts. Could anything be any more subversive of law then the current Supreme Court is?

"We can't allow the votes to be counted, because that would damage the plaintiff (he would lose the election.)" There is your fucking "conservative law." Yeah, let's get more people like that on the faculties of law schools.

Students should be enriched with a wide variety of viewpoints.

What is the "conservative viewpoint" on law that would "enrich students?"

Isn't everybody already being enriched by this viewpoint from AM radio?

And not everyone listens to AM radio. I know I rarely listen to anything other than a local show. BUT at the university I go to I do have some conservative professors and have found it very interesting to be in those classes.

I'm sure a conservative viewpoint could be Constitution as written vs a living document. Why shouldn't students be around a professor that maybe doesn't think that the Constitution is a living document? Isn't that how we learn and grow, hearing/reading other people opinions and forming our own (do we agree, disagree, why?).

We could make it mandatory that everyone listen to Hannity and Limbaugh, then everyone could be enriched by that point of view.

I didn't know that it was written in the Constitution that votes should not be counted when that might cost a Republican the presidential election. But it must be because conservatives say that the Constitution should be taken as written and not as a living document, and after all it was the Supreme Court, and the leading conservative legal jurists made that decision, and everyone clamoring for the "conservative viewpoint" on matters of law supported that decision.

If we really want to get a diversity of opinion so we can enrich the students' experience, let's teach the concepts of law from the best minds in the German legal system from the late 30's and early 40's. The law in the South prior to the Civil War was interesting and different. Let's get all points of view to those students! How much different is that from the legal point of view of a modern person who thinks the Patriot Act, or the authorization of torture ad illegal war are a good idea? Yes, students need to be exposed to the "we don't need no Bill of Rights" school of law scholarship, and the "if he is poor and Black, he is guilty" thread of legal scholarship.

Let's just ban all conservatives from ever teaching. Heaven forbid college students get exposed to more than one damn viewpoint.

I pointed out that I go to a school with a lot of conservative professors. I find it enlightening to listen to why people are convinced the free market and Adam Smith are right vs Keynes, instead of only getting one side of the story. I guess that's what I would hope for any student, to get a wide variety of viewpoints and then discover their own opinions.

But you're way is better, lets just forbid anyone that could ever classify themselves as conservative or republican from ever teaching.

:eyes:

I don't consider a discussion that trivializes or denies racism, nor one that legitimatizes the takeover of our legal system by extreme right wing zealots and authoritarians to be a "normal discussion."

You value hearing all points of view, and I am expressing one that I think you should hear - that the "conservative" viewpoint about law is a grave threat and is not a legitimate legal point of view, but rather is mere talking points to advance and disguise a dishonest ongoing attempt to take over and destroy our legal system. I have no problem with people hearing their "point of view" - we are bombarded with it 24 hours a day as it is. I think people should also hear it challenged once in a while, at least - and that is very rare - and I am challenging it.

But then, we all seem to know that the only lawyers capable of being on the Supreme Court were born on the East Coast and attended either Harvard or Yale Law Schools.

Doesn't everybody know this?

(I'm not criticizing you - this is sardonic)

Kagan is, in fact, Jewish.

Don't you think this is a bit insensitive?

the Neocons?

That is different.

I am sure the president knows what he is doing, and he has access to information we don't have, and we need to trust him, and I am sure the right wing lunatics hate her and that is good enough for me, and this is a great day for women! Right up there with Rice's appointment! and the Greenwalders are just the same as tea baggers, and she sure is a lot better than anyone Palin would have picked...

And Kagan's critics claim she is a Nazi.

:sarcasm: :nopity:

Harvard is one environment. The whole country is a larger one.

expectations -- whether one way or the other.

I'd leave that door wide open a d a pot of coffee on the stove.

I'd never have expected you to oppose anything that Obama does.

What could be more important than that?

"After graduating from Hunter College High School in 1977, Kagan earned a A.B. from Princeton University, summa cum laude, in 1981. She received Princeton's Daniel M. Sachs Memorial Scholarship, one of the highest general awards conferred by the university, which enabled her to earn an M.Phil degree from Oxford University, at Worcester College in 1983.<8> She received a J.D., magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School in 1986. She was editorial chairman of the Daily Princetonian and later Supervisory Editor of the Harvard Law Review."

"Kagan launched her academic career at the University of Chicago Law School. She became an assistant professor in 1991 and a tenured professor of law in 1995.

Her interests focus on administrative law, including the role of the President of the United States in formulating and influencing federal administrative and regulatory law. Her 2001 Harvard Law Review article, "Presidential Administration," was honored as the year's top scholarly article by the American Bar Association's Section on Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice, and is being developed into a book to be published by Harvard University Press."

What a maroon!

Why, thank you, thank you every much :hi:

founded this firm:

http://www.kll-law.com/bio-wlubic.asp

I would rather have 29 white progressives than an ethnic grab-bag of conservatives. You DO realize that white men tend to be more conservative than other groups, right? If you want to know why she's rejecting non-white men, perhaps you should revisit her pro-conservative agenda. You might find your explanation there.