Although you constantly feel the need to belittle me, I am still an intelligent woman. That hardly means that my brilliance cannot be overstated, but I’m not the anti-science, theologically-driven idiot that you make me out to be.

I would consider it sign of superior intellect and judgment

You said, or implied, that well-heeled clients are out there refusing to hire firms generally associated with the left. And unfortunately you said that knowing nothing at all about the legal field or how clients tend to come to hire large law firms.

I do know quite a bit about this, and you were talking out of your ass.

At this point, you are simply going to call me a jerk whenever I call you on any of the many ignorant things you say. Which is fine.

But the reality is you like to think of yourself as this brilliant woman who impresses everyone you know, the pro-lifer who strikes fear in the heart of pro-choicer, the woman with the engineering degree whose brilliance cannot be overstated.

Truly, you really need to learn something about humility and what you DON’T know. It is a lot. You are not that smart and you are certainly not special. You are just an internet commentator talking out of her ass, just like all of us.

And of course, it’s unsurprising that you would like Sarah Palin, because she’s got the same problem you do writ large on a much bigger stage.

I shouldn’t be surprised that you just made something up, taking the most far-fetched and ridiculous interpretation of what I wrote, then distorting that a bit for good measure. After all, it’s Dilan Esper Standard Operating Procedure: if you can’t win on the merits, lie your brains out.

Ah. I don’t think so re: politics, tho “research agendas” is broad enough that it could be a substantive basis for rejection.

I’m trying to think of a counter re: politics, but even if an applicant is highly ideological, there’s a presumption he can put that aside for teaching purposes.

What about a heavily liberal poli sci dep’t whose chair thinks “we need a conservative around here” (hey, it’s a hypo) and discriminates in favor of conservative applicants? Does the answer change if it’s the English dep’t?

I think in the former case, one’s own ideology is likely to reflect/affect one’s studies, mentoring, etc., so that it seems a more acceptable case. Not sure I buy it re: English.

And thank goodness we have such wise, fair-minded philosopher-kings to draw the line between “ordinary differences” and “destructive extremism”!

egd: I’m of the opinion that FS and ACS shouldn’t be put on a resume, it’s too easy to be “screened out” by an individual looking at your resume. Most law firms get enough resumes that it’s easy to discriminate without the appearance of bias.Once you have your foot in the door and you get to show off the intellectual credentials, then you might let it slip (to a sympathetic interviewer) that you’re a FS or ACS member.Is it unethical to leave it off the resume? I don’t think so. FS or ACS membership usually have little bearing on whether an individual is qualified or not.

I had this issue a while back. I had serious doubts about whether I should put various things involving the ACS on my resume considering that I would be working in a distinctly non-liberal field. My wife gave me the best advice, and advice I’m glad I followed-

Put it on your resume. If a firm doesn’t hire you because of that, you wouldn’t want to work there anyway.

I think that holds true for ACS and FS members.

Uri: name withheld sounds like a troll to me.by which i don’t mean that i think his acts are bestial. i mean that i think they are probably fabricated.

I’d like to believe that is true. While I’m sure that this does happen in all kinds of contexts, I would like to think that most people would be ashamed enough to keep it private and not advertise their pettiness in the New York Times.

That said, what kind of discretion is left to the hiring partner? If he is given a blank check to choose, I don’t see how it is unethical. Foolish and small minded, but not unethical because you were given a blank check. Obviously, it is unethical, even if you have a blank check, if you are asked by the other partners about your hiring criteria because there is a responsibility to the other partners. But if the partners don’t care about how you choose, they deserve your choices, for better or worse.

That said, I think intellectual diversity at a law firm is a good thing. It helps to have different kinds of minds looking at a problem and to avoid groupthink. I find it tremendously helpful working at a firm where people’s approaches vary from sticklers to ‘outside-the-box’ types.

As to politics and judgment, yes, politics says something about your judgment, but with few exceptions, you don’t know that unless you ask a candidate about his politics. But it seems to me that most of good reasons to exclude someone of the basis of politics fall into the “doesn’t-play-well-with-others” category. Hating white people/black people/Jews, etc. But these are specific beliefs and mere membership in the Federalist Society doesn’t really fall under that umbrella.

Lastly, there may be sometimes when an applicant’s politics might make them an awkward fit in the firm. A Marxist applying for a job at a creditor’s rights firm. A committed pro-lifer applying for work at a firm who has an abortion clinic as a prominent client. I think in those situations, those types of candidates (however unlikely they might be) would probably not be happy doing the work required of them and might not be a good fit for their jobs. Not everyone is suited for every job they are capable of and it may well be in the interest of the applicant to be turned down for a job that would make him miserable anyway. But this seems like it would be a pretty narrow category.

Theo, I made my comment because you are talking out of your ass. In every major city, there are large law firms who attract many liberals as associates and partners and are nonetheless hired by powerful, conservative businesspeople to represent their interests in transactions and court. It may be that there are particular clients who might seek out a “conservative” law firm, but even if that is so, I know the business end of law practice fairly well and I can tell you that the “liberal” firms haven’t been hurt by their involvement in left-wing causes.

My own thought has been that, if it’s the kind of place where they might not admit you if they knew you, then it’s not the kind of place where you really want to get your degree.

So be candid in applying, and whoever rejects you for who you are, so much the better for you.

And, of course, the boycott that Parks’ arrest sparked was so damaging to the business that all sorts of governmental pressure was put on the boycotters.

True enough, but it was the private violence which was the greater threat.

Once you have your foot in the door and you get to show off the intellectual credentials, then you might let it slip (to a sympathetic interviewer) that you’re a FS or ACS member.

Is it unethical to leave it off the resume? I don’t think so. FS or ACS membership usually have little bearing on whether an individual is qualified or not.

by which i don’t mean that i think his acts are bestial. i mean that i think they are probably fabricated.

Oooh! Categorical Imperative FAIL! Good catch!

Anderson: Two, because it seems N.W. is acting on a secret prejudice, rather than being candid with his/her firm as to the criteria applied.

This seems like a key point. Does anybody believe that when NAME WITHHELD wrote his interview report, he wrote, “I’m recommending against this guy because he’s a Federalist Society member”? Presumably not, i.e., he was lying to his firm.

Some of my partners have conservative views similar to those of the society, but I do not.

If the partners had acted as Mr. Name Withheld did, he’d never have been allowed into the firm in the first place and this instance of a liberal suffering phony angst about his unethical and invidious discrimination would never have occurred.

Eager? I don’t know how to measure “eager”, but they sure enforced it a lot. They not only lost lawsuits against it, there was the small incident of Rosa Parks.

And, of course, the boycott that Parks’ arrest sparked was so damaging to the business that all sorts of governmental pressure was put on the boycotters.

Anderson: One, because Fed Soc membership is a relatively poor marker for those qualities, esp. in a law graduate. Compare if N.W. voted against redheaded applicants.
Two, because it seems N.W. is acting on a secret prejudice, rather than being candid with his/her firm as to the criteria applied.

Four — and perhaps this is just a synthesis of One and Two — anybody who is so closed-minded that he believes that mere membership in the Federalist Society (as a law student, mind you) is a disqualifying characteristic has such poor judgment himself that he probably has an ethical duty to disclose to the firm that he himself is not competent to make such decisions.

My answer would be if (and only if) the person’s political stance was genuinely obnoxious. Refusing to hire a Democrat, a Republican, a Federalist, or an ACLUer would be improper, IMHO.

But rejecting a follower of David Duke, or a LaRouchite, or a Communist, or an advocate of sharia would not be.

Likewise, rejecting Jews, or Catholics, or Mormons would be improper – but I would not hire a Scientologist.

The tolerance a free civil society grants to ordinary differences should not be extended into a license for destructive extremism.

Incidentally, I made that comment not because of some warped ideology (I leave that to you), but because of comments I’ve had with business people and engineers who work with lawyers on a regular basis.

Given that, it seems rather difficult to determine whether or not Fed Soc membership is a good thing or a bad thing. Thus, it seems nonsensical to discriminate based on it.

As a matter of common sense (and perhaps ethics/fiduciary duties to one’s law firm), if an employer is going to base an employment decision on one line in a resume which can be interpreted in a multitude of ways, he should ask the candidate about it. A simple, “So, what do you like about the Federalist Society?” would suffice.

Excuse me? I lived in DC during most of the first term of the Bush administration and I assure you that very few conservatives were hired for career appointee (non-political) positions in the Justice Department.

- Hugh, December 7, 2009, 9:43 pm

Likewise, Palin’s Alaskan abode made her an expert on Russia

It’s not “people of the leftist persuasion” who believe there’s good and bad discrimination.

Many judges who regard the Federalist Society as a feeder system for clerks — and presumably see this as “good discrimination” — strike me as outside the “leftist persuasion.” Those judges tend to see affirmative action as “bad discrimination.”

Are those judges the people Ryan had in mind when decrying people who like discrimination that favors their pet political philosophies, yet decry discrimination that doesn’t?

Ryan Waxx: As usual, we have a great many people of leftist persuasion insisting that there’s “good” discrimination and “bad” discrimination.The bad variety is the kind that’s against their pet political factions, and warrants nearly unlimited remedial powers from all levels of government.The good variety is against their political enemies, and is barely worthy of note, much less intervention.Discrimination law is a political and social weapon.Nothing more, nothing less.

Duh! Some might even call this discrimination vs. invidious discrimination. Put another way- I have a discriminating palate… is that a problem? If I pick discriminate against Taco Bell by eating at In n Out, should I be pilloried?

It’s not “people of the leftist persuasion” who believe there’s good and bad discrimination. It’s “people of the thinking persuasion.”

Discrimination law is a political and social weapon. Nothing more, nothing less.

“If libertarians, at the VC for instance, spent more time discussing Nozick & such instead of Ayn Rand, they might seem much more persuasive. Just sayin’.”

That would require understanding Nozick – something I suspect even Nozick himself fails to do at times. One of the reasons Rawls has kicked his ass eight ways to Sunday over the past couple generations. Perhaps the primary one, given the historical facts in the mean time that seem, to me at least, to lean Nozick’s way.

What are your views of the the plausibility of achieving (or at least pursuing) Rawlsian ends with Hayekian means?

I would have to disagree with this statement, at least as far as Rothbard is concerned (cant comment on the left anarchists because none listed). If I remember correctly, Rothbard stated more than once that his idea of libertarianism was a political theory, one that dealt with the relationship between individuals and government. It is true that moral philosophy provides the foundations of his libertarian theory, but it is not true that one could deduce any ethical evaluations from such theory (outside of a political context). For example, a libertarian would (most likely) assert that “it is wrong for the government to regulate caloric intake.” This is (usually) the logical outcome of libertarian axioms. But these axioms will never tell one whether it is right or wrong to eat 3,500 calories a day. Another example is the controversial topic of abortion. Rothbard defended abortion from state intervention. His arguments, however, shed no light on whether abortion is right or wrong. In summary, Rothbardian libertarianism (and I would argue all libertarian political theories) stands for the proposition that “you have a right to do wrong, provided you do not aggress against the rights of others.” This leaves unanswered whether your actions are morally wrong, whether you are leading the good life, the essence of an ethical theory.

The example I remember from the book regarding Jim Crow is that established bus companies weren’t eager to enforce segregation, fearing competition from rival companies who would cater to black riders. That would not be trivial in places where blacks made up a quarter or a third of the population, and possibly more of the likely riders.

Eager? I don’t know how to measure “eager”, but they sure enforced it a lot. They not only lost lawsuits against it, there was the small incident of Rosa Parks.

It’s the implicit question that makes the whole thing interesting, because it reveals a pretty accurate (I think) picture of the liberal mindset.

I lost a job because I was “too liberal”. What, in your opinion, should I conclude about the “conservative mindset”?