WA - state supreme court rules bar exam no longer required to practice law

[Anti Federalist]

I know I sure wouldn't want somebody who couldn't find a can of relative bearing grease when he needed it.

It's always stowed next to the prop wash.

[A Son of Liberty]

Off topic, kinda, but I'll suggest you get your air travel trips out of the way over the course of the next year or two.

Guess you can't do the same when it comes to litigation...Idiocracy wasn't just a mildly funny movie - it was a premonition, and a pretty spot on one, at that.

[Dr.3D]

It's always stowed next to the prop wash.

This skipper obviously couldn't find his.....

[CaptUSA]

DEI = Didn't Earn It

[Occam's Banana]

DEI = Didn't Earn It

Charlamagne and Dr. Phil "Call Out" DEI Policies as Marxism and Racist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_bQ9bkQTqI
{Nate The Lawyer | 28 April 2024}

Dr. Phil clashed with a Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) advocate, rejecting her advocacy of equality of outcome as "Marxism." The host gathered multiple experts to discuss the impact of DEI on American culture on his "Dr. Phil Primetime" show. The guests included two Black men, pastor James Ward Jr. and York College of PA Professor Erec Smith, and one White woman, "HR leader" and DEI advocate Rachel Kargas. (Fox News)

[Anti Federalist]

Charlamagne and Dr. Phil "Call Out" DEI Policies as Marxism and Racist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_bQ9bkQTqI
{Nate The Lawyer | 28 April 2024}

Dr. Phil clashed with a Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) advocate, rejecting her advocacy of equality of outcome as "Marxism." The host gathered multiple experts to discuss the impact of DEI on American culture on his "Dr. Phil Primetime" show. The guests included two Black men, pastor James Ward Jr. and York College of PA Professor Erec Smith, and one White woman, "HR leader" and DEI advocate Rachel Kargas. (Fox News)

JFC...Jimmy Durante called...he wants his nose back.

[jmdrake]

The Washington court made the technically correct decision: the government should not be in the business of cartelizing professions by enforcing professional licensure - but they poisoned the pill by basing the decision upon the notion of identitarian "equity" rather than upon the principles of liberty.

Sometimes these discussions remind me of the dog in Aesop's fable who lost his bone barking his reflection in the water thinking it was another dog. Another identified group might get a benefit so it must be bad. Okay. Elon Musk complained about United Airlines program for pilots, which turned out to be equally open to white males as anyone else, because a stated motivation was to get more minority pilots. But the overall goal is, there is a pilot shortage and the cost of training, about $150,000, and military pilot recruitment numbers being down was contributing to the shortage. So UA started its own flight school and recruited from HBCUs but all were open to participate. The result is the met their pilot recruitment goals and at the same time had a class of 80% women and minorities, which sounds like a lot, but when you consider that 50% of the population are women that's not far off the national population.

(See: https://www.captechu.edu/blog/new-pi...20they%20serve.)


On the question of law, originally there was no bar exam at all. The first ever bar exam was in 1783 and it was oral and highly subjective. In fact Abraham Lincoln famously gave a bar exam that considered of asking the prospective lawyer "how many books he had read, the definition of a contract, and a few other fundamental questions." Between 1890 and 1920 states shifted to written bar exams. (See : https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2024/02/th...ws-gatekeeper/) Most of these were essay exams until 1972 when the multi-state bar exam became a thing. (See previous link). Note that most law school exams at ABA accredited schools are essay exams. Essay exams aren't as subjective as what Lincoln asked but are still more subjective than the multiple choice MBE.

Essay or oral exams are closer to what lawyers actually do (write and speak) but multiple choice exams can be graded by computer. (Advances in artificial intelligence may lead to machines grading essay and oral exams). I passed the MBE on the first try in 2011. After reading this thread, I decided to take an online practice bar sample test (just 50 questions) to see if I would pass. I did pass, but I missed more questions than I would like. One question that I missed was on hearsay. The fact pattern was is a statement by an employee of company A that company A knew of its potential negligence admissible as evidence by the other side? The question is obviously yes, but why? As I learned hearsay, it is an out of court statement submitted for the truth of the matter. (See: https://www.tncourts.gov/rules/rules-evidence/801). So that would make the statement inadmissible. But there are exceptions to the hearsay rule including a statement made by an adverse party. (See : https://www.tncourts.gov/rules/rules-evidence/803). So I marked the question as it was admissible as a hearsay exception. So how did I get it "wrong?" Well in federal court the rule is that a party opponent statement isn't hearsay in the first place. (See : https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_801). In practice the results are exactly the same! A party opponent statement is admissible. The only difference is which answer is right on a multiple choice test. In court I would have said "Your honor, this is admissible as a statement by a party opponent." I would have said the same thing on oral examination and written the same thing on an essay test. So, should it really make a difference?

Back to the Washington State Supreme Court ruling. It wasn't only based on impact on particular groups. It also raised the question, "Is the MBE the only way to guarantee attorney competence?" From the findings of the WSSC.

After more than three years of extensive study—bringing together data and research with testimony from scholars and experts—the Task Force came to two important findings: The traditional bar exam disproportionately and unnecessarily blocks marginalized groups from entering the practice of law, and the traditional bar exam is at best minimally effective for ensuring competent lawyers.

And here are the actual recommendations.

The Court’s orders implement these changes:

Adopt the National Conference of Bar Examiners’ NextGen bar exam, which addresses many of the identified flaws in the current bar exam by focusing on real-world skills and practice. The NextGen bar exam will be implemented in Washington in summer 2026.

Create three experiential-learning alternatives to the bar exam, one for law-school graduates, one for law-school students, and one for APR 6 law clerks (who are enrolled in a non-law school course of study).

For graduates, this would entail a six-month apprenticeship under the guidance and supervision of a qualified attorney; during that time, the graduates would be required to complete three courses of standardized coursework.

For law students, the experiential pathway would allow them to graduate practice-ready by completing 12 qualifying skills credits and 500 hours of work as a licensed legal intern; they would be required to submit a portfolio of this work to waive the bar exam.

For law clerks (enrolled in a non-law school course of study), creation of additional standardized educational materials and benchmarks to be completed under the guidance of their tutors that dovetail with the requirements of the law school graduate apprenticeship, and 500 hours of work as a licensed legal intern to be eligible to waive the bar exam.

Call for the investigation and adoption of assessments and programs to help ensure lawyers remain competent throughout their careers, not just upon the moment of licensure.

Reduce the experience requirement for out-of-state licensed attorneys from three to one year to be eligible to be licensed in Washington via admission by motion.

Reduce the bar exam minimum passing score from 270 to 266 (the score adopted during the pandemic).

So, you can skip the bar if you've done an apprenticeship or internship or if you've taken another alternative test that's in development that may better reflect real world legal knowledge. I would ask @Anti Federalist if he's rather have a boat pilot who had years of on the job training under an experienced pilot or one who managed to "exam cram" on how to use a number 2 pencil to bubble in the right answers. When I was on the Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer track I "exam crammed" and passed several exams on how Active Directory worked, but didn't understand any of that until years later when I happened to get a job on a bank help desk and did someo f that by necessity.

Anyway, that's all I have. I'll leave everyone to their anti-DEI grip session.

[Occam's Banana]

The Washington court made the technically correct decision: the government should not be in the business of cartelizing professions by enforcing professional licensure - but they poisoned the pill by basing the decision upon the notion of identitarian "equity" rather than upon the principles of liberty.

Sometimes these discussions remind me of the dog in Aesop's fable who lost his bone barking his reflection in the water thinking it was another dog. Another identified group might get a benefit so it must be bad. [...]

I didn't say it was bad. Just the opposite, in fact - I explicitly said it was the "correct decision".

The Washington court's decision will expand to some degree the liberties litigants & defendants will have in securing the legal counsel of their preference/choice, and that is entirely right and proper under libertarian principles. Unfortunately, however, the court's decision wasn't motivated by libertarian principles, but rather (at least in part) by identitarian principles (i.e., DEI vis-à-vis "marginalized groups").

The effects of such disparate motivations may occasionally coincide in limited and particular circumstances (à la "even a broken clock is right twice a day"), but will inevitably lead to much more significantly divergent and incompatible results in their general application. (This is why such motivations matter, despite that some otherwise objectionable motivations might sometimes produce congenial effects.)

Private certifiers should be permitted to employ whatever criteria the please to apply (and the market should be permitted to decide from among them). State certifiers, however, should not (and for that matter, they shouldn't even exist in the first place).

I'll leave everyone to their anti-DEI gripe session.

DEI is every bit as gripe-worthy as Jim Crow - and for the same reasons.

[Anti Federalist]

DEI is every bit as gripe-worthy as Jim Crow - and for the same reasons.

Exactly right.

The question is very simple: are we going to, in law and business, discriminate based on race and sex or or not?

[Anti Federalist]

I would ask Anti Federalist if he's rather have a boat pilot who had years of on the job training under an experienced pilot or one who managed to "exam cram" on how to use a number 2 pencil to bubble in the right answers.

Both.

When I got my first master's license, the USCG Lt that signed off on it told me that I just earned a "license to learn".

USCG alone is one the agencies that require a working "book" knowledge of celestial navigation, including the formulas, for an oceangoing license.

It's very difficult math, and it is considered a "right of passage" to complete it.

[fisharmor]

https://twitter.com/VivekGRamaswamy/...60525457916187

https://twitter.com/barnes_law/statu...03222913520032

There goes Barnes again. He's the king of being right and yet never being able to point to any sound applications of his theories.
I stopped listening to him when I figured out his pattern is to $#@! all over what other people are doing and not actually do anything better, despite being in a prime position to do so.

[fisharmor]

if I'm dragged into a court on a serious charge, I want to know that my mouthpiece has at least passed a certification test of basic legal knowledge and procedures.

In the world of law, most of the time it's not what your lawyer knows, it's who he knows.
Most charges short of murder or being DJT, your lawyer goes in a back room with the state attorney and they do a line of coke off each other's balls and they come out of the room and the charges are dropped, and all it cost you is six mortgage payments.

[jmdrake]

I didn't say it was bad. Just the opposite, in fact - I explicitly said it was the "correct decision".

The Washington court's decision will expand to some degree the liberties litigants & defendants will have in securing the legal counsel of their preference/choice, and that is entirely right and proper under libertarian principles. Unfortunately, however, the court's decision wasn't motivated by libertarian principles, but rather (at least in part) by identitarian principles (i.e., DEI vis-à-vis "marginalized groups").

The effects of such disparate motivations may occasionally coincide in limited and particular circumstances (à la "even a broken clock is right twice a day"), but will inevitably lead to much more significantly divergent and incompatible results in their general application. (This is why such motivations matter, despite that some otherwise objectionable motivations might sometimes produce congenial effects.)

Private certifiers should be permitted to employ whatever criteria the please to apply (and the market should be permitted to decide from among them). State certifiers, however, should not (and for that matter, they shouldn't even exist in the first place).



DEI is every bit as gripe-worthy as Jim Crow - and for the same reasons.

Exactly right.

The question is very simple: are we going to, in law and business, discriminate based on race and sex or or not?

That just shows both of you don't understand DEI. Jim Crowe requires discrimination by definition. DEI does not. There can be discrimination in DEI but there doesn't have to be. Nothing in the Washington State proposal that's the start of this thread requires discrimination against white people or is at all discriminatory against white people or any other group. OC, you admitted that the proposal was "good." You're just griping about it for reasons you can't even articulate. Oh sure, you say it's the same reason as "Jim Crowe", but unless you can point to the equivalent of a "whites only / coloreds only" section in the proposal, you didn't actually make a factual statement. It's not at all the same.

[jmdrake]

I didn't say it was bad. Just the opposite, in fact - I explicitly said it was the "correct decision".

The Washington court's decision will expand to some degree the liberties litigants & defendants will have in securing the legal counsel of their preference/choice, and that is entirely right and proper under libertarian principles. Unfortunately, however, the court's decision wasn't motivated by libertarian principles, but rather (at least in part) by identitarian principles (i.e., DEI vis-à-vis "marginalized groups").

The effects of such disparate motivations may occasionally coincide in limited and particular circumstances (à la "even a broken clock is right twice a day"), but will inevitably lead to much more significantly divergent and incompatible results in their general application. (This is why such motivations matter, despite that some otherwise objectionable motivations might sometimes produce congenial effects.)

Private certifiers should be permitted to employ whatever criteria the please to apply (and the market should be permitted to decide from among them). State certifiers, however, should not (and for that matter, they shouldn't even exist in the first place).



DEI is every bit as gripe-worthy as Jim Crow - and for the same reasons.

Both.

When I got my first master's license, the USCG Lt that signed off on it told me that I just earned a "license to learn".

USCG alone is one the agencies that require a working "book" knowledge of celestial navigation, including the formulas, for an oceangoing license.

It's very difficult math, and it is considered a "right of passage" to complete it.

Sorry, but on this multiple choice test, I didn't give you and option of choice C) both. Nice try though. There is a reason I'm being specific in the analogy. Washington State did the equivalent of going from a system where someone could start practicing solo with nothing but a law degree and passage of a multiple choice test to an option where proficiency can be shown multiple ways (including a different test). And for the record there isn't any math on the bar exam. It's rote knowledge. Someone, given enough study time with practice questions, could pass it without ever stepping foot in a law school or a courtroom IMO.

[Anti Federalist]

That just shows both of you don't understand DEI. Jim Crowe requires discrimination by definition. DEI does not. There can be discrimination in DEI but there doesn't have to be.

OK, so we are going to have a society and law, where you can discriminate based on race and sex.

So I can as well, correct?

[jmdrake]

In the world of law, most of the time it's not what your lawyer knows, it's who he knows.
Most charges short of murder or being DJT, your lawyer goes in a back room with the state attorney and they do a line of coke off each other's balls and they come out of the room and the charges are dropped, and all it cost you is six mortgage payments.

True confirmation of what you're talking about minus the coke. Once a had a client who up for his second (or third?) marijuana charge. Normally that's a misdemeanor, but the prosecutor was going for a felony as he was a repeat offender. The prosecutor wouldn't budge so I passed over for the next discussion date. The next time the prosecutor was someone I knew from law school. He was still being hard nosed, but then he was like "The police officer who arrested your client is on Obama duty (Barak was in town) so I'll offer you a reduced charge a probation." I was like "Let me talk it over with my client." When I got back to the holding cell I was like "Boy you better take this deal!" He broke down crying (thankful crying) and of course we took it. So I can't say Obama never helped me with anything.

On a similar note, the lawyer I worked for when I graduated had a nephew by marriage who was facing 40 years for a home invasion robbery that his skank girlfriend talked him and another young man into doing and the other two turned states evidence on the nephew who was now our client. The best we had was a challenge to a bogus line up identification, but we had two criminal defendants as witnesses against us. We got all the way up to jury selection and I told my boss "We can gamble on this, but if he goes down for 40 years your wife's family will never forgive you." So...he went to talk to the lawyer of the other male defendant and they came to an agreement that either they both got a deal or neither would get a deal. That lady redhead assistant DA was mad as hell! But she ended up having to give us a deal. And why did our client's baby mama turn on him? In the interrogation tape, the girlfriend was standing strong until the police officer said "You just had a baby. You know she'll graduate high school before you get out?" Baby mama was like "Can I have a drink of water?" That's all she wrote.

[jmdrake]

OK, so we are going to have a society and law, where you can discriminate based on race and sex.

So I can as well, correct?

That's not what I said. Reading is fundamental. DEI can be implemented without discrimination. The Supreme Court has long ruled that racial preference based affirmative action is illegal. So how did you read that into what I said when I didn't say that? Hmmmmm....?

Edit: I guess when you read that I said under DEI can be implemented with discrimination you took that to me if someone magically says "DEI" that means they're allowed to discriminate? If so, that's not what I was saying. I"m saying the goals of diversity can be accomplished different ways. The goals of Jim Crow can only be accomplished through discrimination by definition.

[acptulsa]

That's not what I said. Reading is fundamental. DEI can be implemented without discrimination. The Supreme Court has long ruled that racial preference based affirmative action is illegal. So how did you read that into what I said when I didn't say that? Hmmmmm....?

Everything is all or nothing these days. Congress never passes anything that sticks to one subject; every bill with anything good in it has crap stuck to it trying to sneak through. They discourage diplomacy. They discourage nuanced thought on anything. Everyone assumes each new thing is there to overturn everything that was working fine before. And all too often, it really is.

They're polarizing us. We can't have babies any more, because we can't throw away the bathwater without throwing out the baby too. Would you have a baby, knowing you'll wind up swimming in eighteen years' worth of used bathwater?

Literally everything new looks like a Trojan Horse these days.

[Invisible Man]

Certainly you have no objection to a private consortium issuing certificates of competency?

One of the oldest forms of that is what I spent my life working on: mariner's certifications.

Centuries ago the Hanseatic League required their vessel masters pass testing, demonstrating basic competencies as a means to reduce losses.

One of my most important and critical ones is the Dynamic Positioning certification.

That is tested and logged and training conducted under a private group in London called the Nautical Institute

I'm surprised this has managed to survive to this day through the constant insistence of government that only the government can administer such things.

[Occam's Banana]

That just shows both of you don't understand DEI. Jim Crowe requires discrimination by definition. DEI does not. There can be discrimination in DEI but there doesn't have to be. Nothing in the Washington State proposal that's the start of this thread requires discrimination against white people or is at all discriminatory against white people or any other group. OC, you admitted that the proposal was "good." You're just griping about it for reasons you can't even articulate. Oh sure, you say it's the same reason as "Jim Crowe", but unless you can point to the equivalent of a "whites only / coloreds only" section in the proposal, you didn't actually make a factual statement. It's not at all the same.

Okay. *shrug*

And theoretically, communism doesn't "have to" violate anyone's rights - but somehow, in actual practice, it always actually does.

Have fun trying to enforce "diversity", "equity", and "inclusivity" (as those things are defined and implemented by the proponents of "DEI" - especially the "equity" bit) without resorting to discrimination on the basis of race, gender, and/or whatever other identitarian intersectionalities.

I'll just be over here in the corner.

[Invisible Man]

Have fun trying to enforce "diversity", "equity", and "inclusivity" (as those things are defined and implemented by the proponents of "DEI" - especially the "equity" bit) without resorting to discrimination on the basis of race, gender, and/or whatever other identitarian intersectionalities.

You mean like by removing the requirement to pass the bar the bar exam to practice law?

[jmdrake]

Okay. *shrug*

And theoretically, communism doesn't "have to" violate anyone's rights - but somehow, in actual practice, it always actually does.

Have fun trying to enforce "diversity", "equity", and "inclusivity" (as those things are defined and implemented by the proponents of "DEI" - especially the "equity" bit) without resorting to discrimination on the basis of race, gender, and/or whatever other identitarian intersectionalities.

I'll just be over here in the corner.

Apples and orangutans. What's sad is that you don't see how self contradictory your own statements are on this issue. Enforcing diversity? Who used the word enforce? I didn't. The OP article didn't. That's called a straw man argument. You admit that there's nothing you actually object in what Washington state did. You're only objecting to the use of a word. That's political correctness from the right which is no better than political correctness from the left.

You mean like by removing the requirement to pass the bar the bar exam to practice law?

....and replacing it with other requirements such as apprenticeships or a different exam.

[Anti Federalist]

You mean like by removing the requirement to pass the bar the bar exam to practice law?

Let the market decide.

Those of us who would like to hire professionals that have some form of certification that they exhibit basic skills in their trade or practice can do so.

Those who want hire Saul Goodman can do so also.

[Anti Federalist]

Apples and orangutans. What's sad is that you don't see how self contradictory your own statements are on this issue. Enforcing diversity? Who used the word enforce? I didn't. The OP article didn't. That's called a straw man argument. You admit that there's nothing you actually object in what Washington state did. You're only objecting to the use of a word. That's political correctness from the right which is no better than political correctness from the left.

OB is talking about DEI

I was addressing the WA state initiative dropping the bar exam requirement.

and replacing it with other requirements such as apprenticeships or a different exam.

Do you think any professional or tradesman should be required to show competency in their craft before engaging in it, especially those that would create great harm to life and limb to both customers and the general public?

[Anti Federalist]

Let's stop beating around the bush.

DEI is a process where by which whites, who are still the majority in this country, are excluded from job placement, advancement, federal contracts and tenure, among other things, in order to promote non-whites or queeers ahead of them.

That is illegal, but it happens every day.

Under the laws enforced by EEOC, it is illegal to discriminate against someone (applicant or employee) because of that person's race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.

Full stop.

[Occam's Banana]

You mean like by removing the requirement to pass the bar the bar exam to practice law?

No.

I mean like by justifying the removal of the requirement on the (thereby legalized) basis of favoring "marginalized groups", rather than on the basis of favoring human liberty. That is a rather significant difference, especially in the implications for other juridical decisions by the same court. (Such decisions - and their justifications - do not exist in a vacuum, and they do not operate in isolation.)

Apples and orangutans. What's sad is that you don't see how self contradictory your own statements are on this issue. Enforcing diversity? Who used the word enforce? I didn't. The OP article didn't. That's called a straw man argument.

People can use all kinds of pleasant-sounding words, and they can avoid using all kinds of unpleasant-sounding words.

But that doesn't mean those pleasant words do or will actually apply, or that the unpleasant ones don't or won't - and in any case, I don't see why the word "enforce" should be considered inappropriate or objectionable with respect to the court's decision in this case. What would happen if the state bar does not comply with the court's decision, if not "enforce[ment]" of some kind?

Use (or avoid using) whatever words you please, but:

Have fun trying to enforce "achieve" (or "accomplish", or whatever your preferred & more pleasant-sounding word may be) "diversity", "equity", and "inclusivity" (as those things are defined and implemented by the proponents of "DEI" - especially the "equity" bit) without resorting to discrimination on the basis of race, gender, and/or whatever other identitarian intersectionalities.

So-called "DEI" is fundamentally identitarian in nature, and is thus inherently discriminatory.

If it wasn't, it would have no way to enforce "achieve" (or "accomplish", or whatever your preferred & more pleasant-sounding word may be) its objectives, which are explicitly identity-based.

You admit that there's nothing you actually object in what Washington state did.

No, there is something I "actually object to in what Washington state did".

I've been objecting to it since my second post to this thread.

You're only objecting to the use of a word. That's political correctness from the right which is no better than political correctness from the left.

It doesn't matter what particular word is preferred (see above). The substance of my objection remains the same.

[jmdrake]

People can use all kinds of pleasant-sounding words, and they can avoid using all kinds of unpleasant-sounding words.

But that doesn't mean those pleasant words do or will actually apply, or that the unpleasant ones don't or won't - and in any case, I don't see why the word "enforce" should be considered inappropriate or objectionable with respect to the court's decision in this case. What would happen if the state bar does not comply with the court's decision, if not "enforce[ment]" of some kind?

Enforcement of what exactly? A court order to do what you agree with? If we assume that you don't agree with "enforced diversity" but you do agree with allowing alternative ways to allow people to show competence in the law as specified by the order then it's self contradictory for you to say you have a problem with the order because it is 'enforced diversity" especially since it isn't. Enforced diversity would be a quota system. This isn't that. Again, your objection is just right wing political correctness. The order itself explained concern that the bar itself was just minimally useful as a way of assuring lawyer competence. IF the court had said exactly the same thing but left out the word "diversity" you wouldn't have a problem with the ruling, enforced or not enforced.

[jmdrake]

OB is talking about DEI

I was addressing the WA state initiative dropping the bar exam requirement.

Do you think any professional or tradesman should be required to show competency in their craft before engaging in it, especially those that would create great harm to life and limb to both customers and the general public?

Did you not understand a thing I wrote? I gave a pretty complete essay on how legal competence has been evaluated from 1798 until today. I explained how the WA approach still gives a way to show competence albeit different from a standardized test. So I think it's important for lawyers to show competence. I don't think the MBE is the only, or necessarily even the best way to show competence. And OB's only expressed concerned is that the word "diversity" was used, which I consider a shallow concern.

[jmdrake]

Let's stop beating around the bush.

DEI is a process where by which whites, who are still the majority in this country, are excluded from job placement, advancement, federal contracts and tenure, among other things, in order to promote non-whites or queeers ahead of them.

That is illegal, but it happens every day.

Under the laws enforced by EEOC, it is illegal to discriminate against someone (applicant or employee) because of that person's race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.

Full stop.

Circular reasoning in it's finest cynically crafted to obscure inconvenient facts that could lead you to a different truth. Full stop. But I'll continue anyway. Using your false definition you can apply a wrong conclusion to practices that do NOT fit your definition. Nothing in the OP article took anything away from white people and you KNOW that. But by going with a false definition you can pretend that it was somehow "anti white." This is no different by those on the left who call everyone they disagree with a "Russian agent" or anyone who was at all even sympathetic to the January 6th protesters "insurrectionists" even though nobody as of yet has actually be charged with insurrection. In law your statement would be called "conclusory" in that it states its own conclusion without evidence, or in this case in the face of contradictory evidence. Are there examples of DEI that are anti white? I'm sure there are. But lumping everything that happens to include the word "diversity" into the same basket actually weakens your argument.

[Anti Federalist]

https://twitter.com/iamyesyouareno/s...94618092880295