White Flight and Charlotte Law

Calling out an Infilaw school is easy.  Heck, even the New York Times recently got in on the fun.  For example, let's take Charlotte Law and look at how terrible the numbers are from a general perspective.

We could point that the LSAT spreads have dropped from 148 and 152 in the 25th and 75th percentile in 2010 to 138 and 146 in 2014 and 140/145 in 2015.  We could observe that the incoming GPAs at the median are now at 2.82, which in non-STEM undergrad is the equivalent of showing up a few times and drooling on the right bubbles on the final exam.

Charlotte's bar pass rates dropped from a pathetic 55% or so on the North Carolina exam for first-time takers in 2014 to a jaw-droppingly pathetic 47.1% in the summer of 2015.  On top of that shit pile, the upstanding dean, Jay Connison, chose to blame the school's recent alumni for choosing to use Themis and just not studying.

We could talk further about the ridiculous price tag for this place, or the school's anemic employment record.

But Charlotte Law has so much more to offer in terms of revulsion:  its somewhat perverted racial dynamics after the admissions bubble turned south.

I'm not one who easily lays down the race card, but Infilaw has opened this can of worms.  Here's Scott DeVito, Florida Coastal dean, in response to the New York Times:

Sometimes it takes a for-profit entity to right a wrong — in this case the lack of diversity in law schools. At Florida Coastal 44.8 percent of the student body are members of minority groups.

And we've previously criticized Connison's (public) views are that LSAT and such shouldn't matter if a law school has other ends, like those that "position themselves to provide opportunity," which is basically an academic euphemism for the exploitation of poor minorities while telling oneself that the shit sandwich being served is part of a balanced, nutritious diet.

Because it's clear if you look at the numbers from Charlotte Law that their decision to enroll minorities is more one of circumstance than of actual organizational purpose.  To wit:

1L CLASS	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015
BLACK	117	193	201	204	174
WHITE	369	366	252	175	128
ALL OTHER	74	100	82	76	52
TOTAL	560	659	535	455	354
JD ALUMS	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015
BLACK	1	27	47	77	122
WHITE	87	190	278	285	266
ALL OTHER	10	17	29	53	62
TOTAL	98	234	354	415	450

Concurrently with law school taking a massive nosedive nationwide and schools moving closer to open admissions, Charlotte Law increased black 1L enrollment dramatically at the same time white enrollment decreased dramatically; proportionately, Charlotte has gone from 66% white/21% black to 49% black/36% white with other being almost a constant.  As a percentage of JDs awarded, blacks went from a little over 1% of the class to over 27% of the class, a number that is likely to increase dramatically as the 2013-2015 1Ls graduate unless the grading curve disproportionately affects black students (but why would it, he asks rhetorically?).

Bar pass rates and incoming LSATs by race and school are not available, but it's really hard not to see a correlation here.  The school dramatically increased black enrollment the same time its admissions doors flung open and its palatable admissions scores started dropping. Much is unknown about why it worked out this way, but it raises some intriguing questions, such as asking if the school is purposely targeting borderline minorities so it can claim it's the school that offers "opportunity."

Taken solely by itself, diversity and racial inclusion are positive goals.  But combined with desperation and predatory admissions policies, the cynicism meter moves off the damned chart.

For example, one could observe that if these individuals - applicants in general with 145 LSATs - are truly fit for legal education and likely to graduate, pass the bar, and enjoy high-income lifestyles, one has to wonder why Charlotte admitted so few minorities back in the halcyon days of 2007-2009 compared to the present, such that the expansion now is noteworthy.

Indeed, one might ask whether Charlotte was being racist then, or if it is instead being racist now?  It's a law school version of "white flight." The rise of so-called "opportunities" prompts the question of why, exactly, those opportunities exist now.  Charlotte Law isn't so much a beneficent source of opportunity newly opened as a post-graduate version of Detroit.

Surely, Charlotte knows that the risk of career catastrophe is very high for its graduates, and no reasonable person could believe otherwise with a straight face.  Charlotte may view itself as a crusader of post-recession racial opportunity, but a simple look at the numbers suggests that this is delusional and completely backwards, an Emperor with no clothes convinced that it's wearing the mantle of diversity.  Charlotte admits these students in exchange for federal loan proceeds knowing full well that the odds of law school completion, bar passage, gainful long-term employment, and loan repayment - not to mention the intangible of career satisfaction - are extremely low (again, if they are not, why did they not admit these same students 5-10 years ago?). 

Absolutely, the prestigious side of the bell curve has a race problem.  The solution is clearly not, however, to cynically admit minorities into a likely dead end so that a corporate enterprise can claim to be seeking justice when someone calls out its avarice and declining standards.

It's one thing to disgustingly exploit 143 LSATs to keep your shitty for-profit operation floating.  Specifically targeting minority 143 LSATs - which it appears Charlotte may be doing as a contemplated strategy in the admissions department; either that, or whites just don't apply, which should, I suppose, also be a red flag - is a brand new level of reprehensibility.  This is particularly so where North Carolina already has a functioning law school, established in the 1930s, directly affiliated with an HBCU that charges lower tuition with similarly weak employment prospects (though, one would assume, a better reputation in the region, particularly for African-Americans).

I would concede that the profession would benefit from having more black practitioners on a relative basis (obviously, on an absolute basis, the profession needs more no one).  However, this isn't the answer.  Disproportionately saddling risky, marginal minority candidates with massive debts unlikely to be repaid to benefit a for-profit enterprise does not advance racial progress in the United States or in the legal profession; quite the opposite.  This isn't paternalism or far-flung speculation.  It's common fucking sense, it's exploitative (intentional or not), and it's wrong.

Of course, as big of a rip off as Charlotte is, be you black, white, or whatever, there are others who manage to be ripped off for far greater sums.