Freeman got a pass for the Fiesta Bowl debacle. Does this continue?

[Bob Rodes]

Interesting.

And how do you -- or your father -- view that all as having turned out?

Well, my father's dead, so I'll have to wait for his opinion for a while. I can't speak for whether AA is responsible or not, but I do feel that while African Americans are considerably less underrepresented in the legal profession than they were in 1970. But still severely underrepresented.

This article mentions that "the U.S. Census estimated that there were 4,000 black lawyers in 1970; in 1980, about 15,700; in 1990, 24,700, and, according to estimates from the end of 2005, now 44,800." Currently, that number is at about 66,500, or about five percent of the total. Of course, the total number of lawyers has increased a great deal in that time as well, so the percentages are significant: 1970, 1.3%, 1980, 2.8%, 1990, 3.2%, 2005, 4.1%. Since 2010, that percentage has been pretty much static at about 4.8%.

The biggest increase happened between 1970 and 1980, where the total number increased by more than four times and the percentage of the whole more than doubled. While I can't say that affirmative action was responsible for the increase, that was the time that affirmative action was being applied most aggressively to admissions, before the backlash about reverse discrimination began in the mid 80s (I don't have an opinion on whether or not that backlash was justified; there are good arguments on both sides) and beyond.

Given that 13% of Americans are African-American, and less than five percent of lawyers are African-American, there's still a significant gap there. Part of the problem is that African-Americans as a whole are (still, sadly) overrepresented among the poor, and therefore underrepresented by the legal profession. The average lawyer is paying off a $75,000 loan, and so can't afford to represent the poor even if he or she wants to.

To address the general problem of areas of law being under-served because they don't pay well, the Notre Dame Law School started the Loan Repayment Assistance Program, which provides assistance in paying off student loans for students who are practicing law in areas that don't allow them to make enough to pay their loans. My father very much believed in the program. He was involved in its design, and gave it considerable financial support as well.

 

[Bob Rodes]

That's a lot of gut but a paucity of evidence.

But many of you seem intent on elevating your BELIEFS and INTUITIONS to the level of empirical evidence. I wish I had that POWER. But then, maybe you don't have it either.

You say you don't know, yet YOU BELIEVE IT WILL ALL TURN OUT OKAY. That doesn't sound like even SPECULATION based on analysis but rather RAW UNADULTERATED HOPE. A kid's Christmas wish, to be honest.

Since I don't deal in belief or hope or even observe Christmas much, there's very little I can add. Football to me is not a faith-based exercise, and HOPE IS NOT A STRATEGY.

Yet, the one thing I AM expecting -- because there's really no IF about it but merely a WHEN -- is that a first-year college head coach WILL MAKE MISTAKES. I'll be watching INTENTLY to see how MANY there are and HOW COSTLY. And ON THAT -- the FREQUENCY AND SEVERITY OF MISTAKES -- the season may turn.

It's one thing to learn the lessons of OSU, another to make as many new mistakes every week. One game does not a HEAD COACH EDUCATION MAKE.

Don't include me in that many! If my gut feelings were evidence, then I would be predicting the future. I do, however, find that my gut feelings have a way of becoming evidence over time. I had a bad feeling about BVG. I had a "meh" feeling about Jeff Quinn and Del Alexander. I had a good feeling about Clark Lea. So, I have a bit of anecdotal evidence that all these guys are going to turn out well, since I have a good feeling about every one of them.

Everyone makes mistakes. You don't have any evidence that a first-year head coach makes more mistakes than an experienced coach. Talent has something to do with it. Ara's coaching record at Miami was better than Kelly's at Notre Dame, for example. My gut tells me that Freeman has enormous talent. That doesn't mean that people who say he doesn't are wrong, because there are no data that represent evidence of either position.

 

[HDK]

1. We'll agree to disagree on that. IMO, it's somewhere between bona fide substantiation and pure speculation.
2. Of course they have. Straw man, though.
3. This discussion started with my assertion that Holtz benefited from AA. You don't need to run it on, if you prefer not to talk about it. If you read any of the stuff I linked, I think you would find that admissions were very much a part of it as well. Not so much now, of course.
4. Well, I'm God. That trumps your argument from authority. Seriously, we've about beaten this argument to death, and are reduced to respectfully disagreeing with one another. So, what's your role at ND? I'm just interested. My closeness to the university is that my father was a law prof there from 1956 to 2013. I'm not an alum; went to IUSB and majored in music. My experience with the football team is mainly a year I spent in general maintenance, and had to roll the tarps on and off the field with about 30 other people when Dan Devine wanted it done. Which he once wanted done four times in two days.

Don't go down the rabbit hole with Patricia. She thinks she is never wrong and does not agree to disagree or even drop a subject.

 

[Bob Rodes]

Other than Tony Rice what other player benefited from a departure from normal recruiting standards under Holtz ?

I’ve always contended that if you took the top students in their class, strapped pads and a helmet on them and made them practice and attend meetings every day that their grades would suffer.

it’s very difficult to serve those two masters

I might have had your dad as one of my professor.
What subject did he teach ?

I don't know. I've already made my point in some detail, and you disagree with it.

I suspect that's highly likely.

Not sure which two masters you mean.

Interesting. My father had the same name as mine, Robert Rodes. Here's his bio, from which "LAW70315, Administrative Law LAW70813, Jurisprudence LAW70827, Ethics II LAW73835, Medieval Legal History." Those were the subjects he taught at the time he retired, but I believe he taught Procedure for quite a few years in the 70s and 80s, and I know he taught a course in Public Welfare back in the day as well. When were you there?

 

[Patrirish]

I don't know. I've already made my point in some detail, and you disagree with it.

I suspect that's highly likely.

Not sure which two masters you mean.

Interesting. My father had the same name as mine, Robert Rodes. Here's his bio, from which "LAW70315, Administrative Law LAW70813, Jurisprudence LAW70827, Ethics II LAW73835, Medieval Legal History." Those were the subjects he taught at the time he retired, but I believe he taught Procedure for quite a few years in the 70s and 80s, and I know he taught a course in Public Welfare back in the day as well. When were you there?

I had a different professor for Constitutional Law.

Sorry I didn’t get to study in your dad’s class/es

 

[4-4-3]

I’d venture to say that it’s not the higher-percentage play in any business !

And I would agree!

 

[Bob Rodes]

I had a different professor for Constitutional Law.

Sorry I didn’t get to study in your dad’s class/es

Who was your Constitutional Law prof? Garnett maybe?

 

[4-4-3]

Well, my father's dead, so I'll have to wait for his opinion for a while. I can't speak for whether AA is responsible or not, but I do feel that while African Americans are considerably less underrepresented in the legal profession than they were in 1970. But still severely underrepresented.

This article mentions that "the U.S. Census estimated that there were 4,000 black lawyers in 1970; in 1980, about 15,700; in 1990, 24,700, and, according to estimates from the end of 2005, now 44,800." Currently, that number is at about 66,500, or about five percent of the total. Of course, the total number of lawyers has increased a great deal in that time as well, so the percentages are significant: 1970, 1.3%, 1980, 2.8%, 1990, 3.2%, 2005, 4.1%. Since 2010, that percentage has been pretty much static at about 4.8%.

The biggest increase happened between 1970 and 1980, where the total number increased by more than four times and the percentage of the whole more than doubled. While I can't say that affirmative action was responsible for the increase, that was the time that affirmative action was being applied most aggressively to admissions, before the backlash about reverse discrimination began in the mid 80s (I don't have an opinion on whether or not that backlash was justified; there are good arguments on both sides) and beyond.

Given that 13% of Americans are African-American, and less than five percent of lawyers are African-American, there's still a significant gap there. Part of the problem is that African-Americans as a whole are (still, sadly) overrepresented among the poor, and therefore underrepresented by the legal profession. The average lawyer is paying off a $75,000 loan, and so can't afford to represent the poor even if he or she wants to.

To address the general problem of areas of law being under-served because they don't pay well, the Notre Dame Law School started the Loan Repayment Assistance Program, which provides assistance in paying off student loans for students who are practicing law in areas that don't allow them to make enough to pay their loans. My father very much believed in the program. He was involved in its design, and gave it considerable financial support as well.

So, do you believe in Affirmative Action in principle?

And what about when it reaches the point of, say, keeping Asians out of Harvard as was done with Jews in the 20's? Do you believe in that level of "sacrifice" on the part of those INDICATIVELY more qualified as per standardized tests, etc.?
.
I often wonder HOW DOES ONE EVEN QUANTIFY SOCIAL JUSTICE? Does it mean foregoing a number of the best so that the least have a better shot?

I even wonder that if a society is TRULY, TRULY JUST, will it not on that basis alone be SOCIALLY JUST as well? And we do seem to have in place EXTREMELY GOOD LAWS against bias and discrimination. But then, in order to keep from even further restricting certain groups' opportunities, should we then restrict the opportunities of other groups? Is that next step a given?

And if so, at what point do we cease being a society based on the individual and become instead one based not only on the good of the collective but also ANY NUMBER OF SELF-APPOINTED COLLECTIVES which claim to be -- or WHICH EVEN ARE -- DISADVANTAGED?

I ask, NOT KNOWING.

And do we even have the right to EMPOWER SOME GROUPS AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS, considering that anti-discrimination laws apply TO US ALL not only as potential violators but also as beneficiaries?

Maybe the numbers -- yours and others -- WILL STUBBORNLY REMAIN WHERE THEY ARE. Not least because some would argue that if you don't get a kid in the right kind of environment by 7 -- and maybe even as early as 3 -- his horizons dramatically narrow.

And THAT as I see it, is the problem.

 

[Bob Rodes]

So, do you believe in Affirmative Action in principle?

And what about when it reaches the point of, say, keeping Asians out of Harvard as was done with Jews in the 20's? Do you believe in that level of "sacrifice" on the part of those INDICATIVELY more qualified as per standardized tests, etc.?
.
I often wonder HOW DOES ONE EVEN QUANTIFY SOCIAL JUSTICE? Does it mean foregoing a number of the best so that the least have a better shot?

I even wonder that if a society is TRULY, TRULY JUST, will it not on that basis alone be SOCIALLY JUST as well? And we do seem to have in place EXTREMELY GOOD LAWS against bias and discrimination. But then, in order to keep from even further restricting certain groups' opportunities, should we then restrict the opportunities of other groups? Is that next step a given?

And if so, at what point do we cease being a society based on the individual and become instead one based not only on the good of the collective but also ANY NUMBER OF SELF-APPOINTED COLLECTIVES which claim to be -- or WHICH EVEN ARE -- DISADVANTAGED?

I ask, NOT KNOWING.

And do we even have the right to EMPOWER SOME GROUPS AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS, considering that anti-discrimination laws apply TO US ALL not only as potential violators but also as beneficiaries?

Maybe the numbers -- yours and others -- WILL STUBBORNLY REMAIN WHERE THEY ARE. Not least because some would argue that if you don't get a kid in the right kind of environment by 7 -- and maybe even as early as 3 -- his horizons dramatically narrow.

And THAT as I see it, is the problem.

- So, do you believe in Affirmative Action in principle?

I don't know. Like you, on this matter I claim to be as ignorant as Socrates. My father, however, thought — and wrote — a great deal about the broader principles upon which initiatives like Affirmative Action rest. In his article On Professors and Poor People - A Jurisprudential Memoir, he says this, which could function as an apologia for Affirmative Action and like initiatives:

We can deal with problems as they arise, and when, as often happens, our solutions give rise to new problems, we can deal with them as well. When people fall by the wayside, we can pick them up, dust them off, set them on their feet, and do the same thing again if they fall again a few paces down the road. The historical indeterminacy of the work is made up for by its eschatological fruition. As Gutierrez says, it has value in terms of communion with God.

So, perhaps I can say that I have no idea whether history will show Affirmative Action to be efficacious as history chooses to define efficacy, but that I have faith in its eschatological value.

- I even wonder that if a society is TRULY, TRULY JUST, will it not on that basis alone be SOCIALLY JUST as well?

I think so. It seems to me that a truly just society is one that perfectly applies the principle "love God with your whole heart, your whole mind, and your whole soul, and love your neighbor as yourself." Since a society is a set of social interactions between individuals, it follows that such a society would be socially just as well.

- And THAT as I see it, is the problem.

As I see it, the problem — the only problem — is that we do not perfectly apply the above stated principle. Or more correctly, we imagine that we do not.

 

[BGI User 1596]

- So, do you believe in Affirmative Action in principle?

I don't know. Like you, on this matter I claim to be as ignorant as Socrates. My father, however, thought — and wrote — a great deal about the broader principles upon which initiatives like Affirmative Action rest. In his article On Professors and Poor People - A Jurisprudential Memoir, he says this, which could function as an apologia for Affirmative Action and like initiatives:

Makes sense to me. Interesting article, too.

- I even wonder that if a society is TRULY, TRULY JUST, will it not on that basis alone be SOCIALLY JUST as well?

I think so. It seems to me that a truly just society is one that perfectly applies the principle "love God with your whole heart, your whole mind, and your whole soul, and love your neighbor as yourself." Since a society is a set of social interactions between individuals, it follows that such a society would be socially just as well.

- And THAT as I see it, is the problem.

As I see it, the problem is that we do not perfectly apply the above stated principle.

From those according to their ability to those according to their needs!

 

[Patrirish]

Who was your Constitutional Law prof? Garnett maybe?

No, I’m trying to remember his name.

Younger guy.

He drove a Corvette and used to let me borrow it

 

[4-4-3]

- So, do you believe in Affirmative Action in principle?

I don't know. Like you, on this matter I claim to be as ignorant as Socrates. My father, however, thought — and wrote — a great deal about the broader principles upon which initiatives like Affirmative Action rest. In his article On Professors and Poor People - A Jurisprudential Memoir, he says this, which could function as an apologia for Affirmative Action and like initiatives:

So, perhaps I can say that I have no idea whether history will show Affirmative Action to be efficacious as history chooses to define efficacy, but that I have faith in its eschatological value.

- I even wonder that if a society is TRULY, TRULY JUST, will it not on that basis alone be SOCIALLY JUST as well?

I think so. It seems to me that a truly just society is one that perfectly applies the principle "love God with your whole heart, your whole mind, and your whole soul, and love your neighbor as yourself." Since a society is a set of social interactions between individuals, it follows that such a society would be socially just as well.

- And THAT as I see it, is the problem.

As I see it, the problem — the only problem — is that we do not perfectly apply the above stated principle. Or more correctly, we imagine that we do not.

Your father sounds like he was a wise and optimistic man.

Of course, to put one's faith in the "eschatological value" of things is not something everyone has the capacity to do when confronted with the day to day challenges and necessities of POWER RELATIONS where people actually compete and seek to gain advantage.

My own bedrock OPERATING PRINCIPLE is that we're all NINE MISSED MEALS from behavior we could not otherwise conceive of. But, of course, the further we are from it, the better our lives -- at least in most basic ways.

Historically, we've been the beneficiaries of cheap/abundant/dense energy and the resulting ECONOMIC SURPLUSES. THAT'S WHAT'S HELD US TOGETHER.

But we have not shared our wealth. Let alone equally. No developed non-totalitarian society ever has. And there's a good case to be made that the freer and more laissez-faire a society, the greater the inequality. To believe in some sort of END-GAME EQUITY is certainly one way to approach things. Here on earth, though, people will never cease fighting for power.

As for affirmative action?

We tried it when we could afford it. I've seen no dramatic sea-change. The underlying dynamics remain LARGELY INTACT as outcome differentials are difficult to solve as long as there's SHARP POLARIZATION. And with polarization, you almost have to CROSS-FERTILIZE IT away.

As when Romans married Teutons.

 

[Bob Rodes]

No, I’m trying to remember his name.

Younger guy.

He drove a Corvette and used to let me borrow it

No idea who that is.

 

[Patrirish]

No idea who that is.

I’ll figure it out

I thought his last name began with an “M”

 

[Bob Rodes]

I’ll figure it out

I thought his last name began with an “M”

Maybe the second syllable? Jay Tidmarsh teaches Constitutional Law. Whether he was young I guess depends on how old you are. He's been there 33 years now.

 

[Patrirish]

Maybe the second syllable? Jay Tidmarsh teaches Constitutional Law. Whether he was young I guess depends on how old you are. He's been there 33 years now.

I see that your dad was mentioned in the “1964-1965 Report of the Dean”

My friend, Richard Catenacci was Case Editor of the “Lawyer”

Small world

 

[Bob Rodes]

I see that your dad was mentioned in the “1964-1965 Report of the Dean”

My friend, Richard Catenacci was Case Editor of the “Lawyer”

Small world

Boy, that brings back some names. My father's closest friends on the faculty back then were Bernie Ward, John Noonan, Bob Blakey, Tom Shaffer and Con Kellenberg. I remember regular evening get-togethers at the house with my father and these gentlemen having animated discussions that made absolutely no sense to me at all.

Noonan left for UCB in '66 (sold my parents his '62 Ford Falcon, which was one of our family cars for quite a few years after that), and went on to become a Federal judge on the Ninth Circuit in California from 1985 until he died in 2017. Blakey is probably best known for drafting RICO back in 1970. Shaffer and my father collaborated on a number of projects over the years. Kellenberg's kids and our kids grew up together and some of us are still good friends.

Sounds like you were there back in the day, then. The only student I knew from back then was Joe Martori, who owned a timeshare company based in Sedona back when I was selling timeshares in Sedona myself 20 years ago. Did you know Joe, by any chance? He was a character.

 

[Patrirish]

Boy, that brings back some names. My father's closest friends on the faculty back then were Bernie Ward, John Noonan, Bob Blakey, Tom Shaffer and Con Kellenberg. I remember regular evening get-togethers at the house with my father and these gentlemen having animated discussions that made absolutely no sense to me at all.

Noonan left for UCB in '66 (sold my parents his '62 Ford Falcon, which was one of our family cars for quite a few years after that), and went on to become a Federal judge on the Ninth Circuit in California from 1985 until he died in 2017. Blakey is probably best known for drafting RICO back in 1970. Shaffer and my father collaborated on a number of projects over the years. Kellenberg's kids and our kids grew up together and some of us are still good friends.

Sounds like you were there back in the day, then. The only student I knew from back then was Joe Martori, who owned a timeshare company based in Sedona back when I was selling timeshares in Sedona myself 20 years ago. Did you know Joe, by any chance? He was a character.

I didn’t know Joe.

Bit I also have a lot of fond memories

I recall the Manion family as being influential in area, I forget if the patriarch was a judge or a politician or both.

ND was a small school in 1960 so it was more like a big family.
While you didn’t know all of your classmates, you knew a significant number of them, which was very nice.

John Murray, a football player, class of 63, went on to be a law partner with Richard Catenacci at Connell Foley & Geiser in NJ

I used to play pickup BBall with Monk Malloy, never dreaming that he would become the future President.

I remember exactly where I was sitting in my Business/Government Policy class and the cloud formation outside the window when President Kennedy was shot.

I could go on for hours, but, back to football 😜

 

[Bob Rodes]

I didn’t know Joe.

Bit I also have a lot of fond memories

I recall the Manion family as being influential in area, I forget if the patriarch was a judge or a politician or both.

ND was a small school in 1960 so it was more like a big family.
While you didn’t know all of your classmates, you knew a significant number of them, which was very nice.

John Murray, a football player, class of 63, went on to be a law partner with Richard Catenacci at Connell Foley & Geiser in NJ

I used to play pickup BBall with Monk Malloy, never dreaming that he would become the future President.

I remember exactly where I was sitting in my Business/Government Policy class and the cloud formation outside the window when President Kennedy was shot.

I could go on for hours, but, back to football 😜

I remember it being like a big family back then, too, although I was four in 1960. I was in second grade at Cleland School (later Stanley Clark School) when Kennedy was shot. Ok, back to football.