Covington Returns Yolanda Young Fire, Says Ex-Staff Lawyer Had Lackluster GPA

Thurgood
Mar 27, 2009 12:48 PM CST

With the percentages of minorities who are lawyers or law school students at all time lows that tired old affirmative action argument rings hollow.  You can get all the C’s you want to as long as you pass the bar.  I would think someone with any semblence of a legal education would know better to use labels such as “liberal” as a red herring to bolster an otherwise weak argument.

Flag this comment

J.D.
Mar 27, 2009 1:44 PM CST

Thurgood, I’ll break it down for you.

Liberal policy results in Georgetown giving a space to individuals like Yolanda based not on merit or LSAT scores, but just on physical appearance. Without the policy, she would have gone somewhere like UDC and probably would have received a B or even A average. But she had to compete with people with 178’s on their LSAT and she was set up for failure.

Then, C&B hires Yolanda, not because of her C average, but because she filled a policy quota that would prevent the firm from being sued for hiring “too few” of people who look a certain way. AGAIN, she was set up for failure.

This analysis fits regardless of how many minorities are getting into law school. And it’s true that you can pass the bar with a C average. But at the end of the day, social engineering is failing people, resulting in unhappy people, creating social strife, and fomenting lawsuits. This IS the product of liberal policymaking—that’s a fact.

Flag this comment

Recent grad
Mar 27, 2009 2:02 PM CST

I am NOT a fan of affirmative action…however, in certain cases, it is necessary. Without it, certain fields, like ours, would be filled with all white men. This is hardly ideal.
It almost seems that # 4 suggests that minorities below a certain LSAT score should be concentrated in Tier 3 and Tier 4 schools. But then that should also be the case for caucasians who score below a certain LSAT score.
It is disturbing to see the above comment that Yolanda was hired to fill a policy quota.  As an Asian-American, I look to see if the firm is diverse.  If there are no Asians, then I wouldn’t pick that firm even if they hired me.  Why?  Becuase it means that merit is not the only reason I’m selected. Adding me would mean making the firm appear to be more “colorful” - addition to the rainbow.
I really hate how firms/companies have so-called “diversity” policies but in reality, no one is encouraged to actually interact with one another. It’s all for show.
I’d like to see some research that confirms for me that diversity initiatives does not result in increased interaction between people of different races, cultures, etc.

Flag this comment

B. McLeod
Mar 27, 2009 5:46 PM CST

As we have a reader posting as “Thurgood,” I trust we can expect great things. 

I read the Complaint Ms. Young filed in this case.  It was not a very well-prepared pleading, and I would not be surprised if it draws a Motion to Strike all or parts before the firm actually answers.  When last I checked, Ms. Young, with no first-chair trial experience, was handling her case pro se, because she could not get knowledgeable counsel to file this for her.  While I think it is important for people who sincerely believe they have been the subjects of discrimination to press these cases, I also think it is important for the ones who may be paranoiac head cases to consider that their perceptions could be flawed.  We will see where this case goes.

Recent grad, when you are sizing up a firm, I would encourage you to look beyond whether that firm currently has an Asian on staff.  Ask around, and find out about the firm.  If you do not turn up any indications of bias, you should consider taking the job.  Then, when the next Asian lawyer interviews, you will be on staff.  Even the greatest demographic changes (like great magic) start out small.

Flag this comment

3L student
Mar 27, 2009 7:28 PM CST

People wake up!!!! There is something seriously wrong with law firms with over 100 attorneys with just 1 or 2 minority lawyers. I have seen this with my own eyes. When I ask, they tell me that they are interested in diversity. As for Covington, they need to stop just looking for people in certain law schools. There are many highly qualified minority law students that have proven themselves in many different law schools. It shocks me that they hired this lady above more qualified minority students. WOW. C average. Good job Covington!!!

Flag this comment

J.D.
Mar 28, 2009 4:41 PM CST

“Backwards thinking makes you think that she didn’t get into Georgetown based upon merit and LSAT scores.”

Uh, no, #5. If Affirmative Action didn’t exist, then we would all know that she got in ON MERIT. But because we know that Aff.Act. played a role, and because it it often more influential to the admissions process than any other factor, I’m pretty confident assuming that Yolanda was set up to fail by the program, especially knowing that SHE HAD A ‘C’ AVERAGE.

She clearly isn’t the Rhodes Scholar you believe her to be.

You’re the backwards thinking one. I want to judge people on the content of their character—you still want to look at the color of a person’s skin. You’re an enemy to MLK, Jr.‘s dream.

Flag this comment

Linda Arsemussen
Mar 29, 2009 9:12 AM CST

This is the kind of backlash you would expect in a recession.  Good women who get put down by big firms in bad times.

Flag this comment

J.D.
Mar 29, 2009 6:24 PM CST

GIVE people the opportunity, but don’t judge people on their physical appearance. I’m not presuming anyone will fail—but I know that under-qualified people, if artificially advanced through a social engineering program, will very likely one day become frustrated, fall behind, and start suing like an obnoxious moron like Yolanda.

Everyone’s got the opportunity to “prove the issue” as to their ability, McLoed—it’s on the LSAT, the SAT’s, and the GPA where that takes place.

Flag this comment

Heidi O
Mar 30, 2009 12:09 PM CST

Since most of us know that the ability to be a first-rate attorney has little connection to LSAT scores and law school grades, doesn’t this all beg the point?  Associate says, “Firm treats associate attorney ranks as ghetto.”  Firm says, “You were only a slightly better than C student anyway,” which is relevant to what?  Perhaps in hiring they should be up front and say, “The slightly better than C average associates will be relegated to the associate ghetto; we’re going to make as much money as we can off of you until you get sick of us and leave” so hirees know up front.  The advantage to the hiree, of course, is to get some practice experience so they can break off and start their own firm with other disaffected associates.  Or they could just start with a small or medium-sized firm that offers a more sane practice environment.

My point, and I do have one, is that I can’t imagine anyone even wanting to work for a large firm.

Flag this comment

Wrong, J.D.
Mar 30, 2009 4:57 PM CST

” If Affirmative Action didn’t exist, then we would all know that she got in ON MERIT. But because we know that Aff.Act. played a role…”

How do we know that?  Because you listen to Bill O’Reilly?  My law school grades were worse than my undergrad grades.  So the hell what?  This is the most specious reasoning I have seen in quite a long time.  God help your clients.

Flag this comment