Talk:Lani Guinier

First/Second Woman of Color
Lani Guinier is the SECOND woman of color appointed tenure at Harvard Law School. Straight from the Harvard newspaper: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1998/2/4/welcome-guinier-pwe-welcome-the-announcement/

"We welcome the announcement last week that noted scholar Lani Guinier '71 accepted tenure from Harvard Law School (HLS) and hope her appointment will be followed by offers to others from a diversity of backgrounds. ...Harvard Law School currently has only one tenured minority woman, Gottlieb Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren, who is Native American"

Though for some reason she quietly became the first woman of color sometime later.

Not sure what the point of this section is. Is it a dig at Harvard or at Eliz Warren? We all know now (as of 2018) that Eliz Warren is a white woman who (like many white people) has a family story of Native ancestry and perhaps a few genes to indicate a distant Native biological ancestor. For reasons that she states were sincere at the time, but not accurate, she clicked an additional or wrong box on a Harvard survey, but Warren is not a woman of color. That Harvard page has been corrected. Lani Guinier was clearly the first.David Couch (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

One-Sided Rant
"Journalists, both those fed erroneous data by right wing Republicans as well as those who simply misunderstood (or failed even to read in context) her law review articles, also alleged that Guinier supported the shaping of electoral districts to ensure a black majority, a process known as 'race-conscious districting.'"

Unencyclopedic tone. The article is merely seething with outrage than Guinier was not appointed. It is not worthy of a place in Wikipedia absent substantial revision and insertion of balance.John Paul Parks (talk) 05:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. It's a bit better now, but each section ends with statements supporting Guinier/her views.

Untitled
In 1993 President Clinton nominated HLS Prof. Lani Guinier to be Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, but after a negative reaction by some conservatives got traction in the mainstream media (she was labelled her a "Quota Queen" among other things) her nomination was withdrawn, after Clinton claimed he read her law review articles and found them too liberal.

Fast forward to the Bernard Kerik dust up, and all of the sudden Lani Guinier has gotten lumped in with Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, Clinton nominees for U.S. Attorney General who got derailed by "nanny problems." One might expect this from Fox News (see e.g. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141228,00.html) and MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6696925/). But Jon Stewart also got in the act, making fun of her for having a nanny problem on Comedy Central (see clip here if you scroll down to the Kerik clip on12/14: http://www.crooksandliars.com/). Even the Washington Post make this unfounded accusation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/articles/A57960-2004Dec11_2.html), although unlike Fox et. al., on December 14th the Washington Post issued a correction, the text of which was:

"Correction A Dec. 12 article incorrectly said that Lani Guinier's nomination to head the Justice Department's civil rights division under President Bill Clinton was withdrawn because of a "nanny problem." There was no such problem, and the Clinton White House withdrew the nomination because of controversy over Guinier's legal writings."

On December 15th, just a day after the WaPo correction, however, the Baltimore Sun ran a whole new story alleging that Lani had a nanny problem, and countless bloggers have picked this up as "fact." One starts to wonder whether there are only a handful of reporters in this entire country, whose sloppily researched stories get picked up and republished a million times without the least bit of factchecking. And then, enter the Internet. Once a few websites published the erroneous accusation, other sites,and many blogs, linked to them for "support" on this contention. Within a short amount of time a Google search revealed so many sites that made this false claim that her fictitious "nanny problem" seems entrenched, well document and irrefutable.

I reprint below the text of Lani's letter to the Baltimore Sun about this:


 * To whom it may Concern:


 * In 1993 my nomination to head the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice was nixed, abetted by a media spin cycle that distorted my views of democracy. Now I find your staff reporters erroneously catapulting me into the pantheon of nominees who lost out because they did not pay taxes for a domestic worker.[December 15, 2004 Wednesday, Pg. 1E, "Parents often turn a blind eye, hiring nannies illegally in U.S.; Nominees aren't the only ones ignoring immigration status," Ellen Gamerman, SUN STAFF, WASHINGTON.]


 * To set the record straight, there was never an issue during my nomination imbroglio about nonpayment of taxes for a domestic worker. President Clinton withdrew my nomination because of a controversy about my academic writings about democracy. The controversy was fueled by a media firestorm that reported my views inaccurately and out of context. To my dismay, I have somehow been swept up in another media controversy challenging my integrity in defiance of the facts. Other media outlets have since issued corrections. I trust The Baltimore Sun will do the same.


 * Those who are interested in the facts, including the ideas about democracy that were the sole source of my "dis-appointment" in 1993, might want to read two books I authored explaining those events: The Tyranny of the Majority (Free Press: 1994) and Lift Every Voice: Turning a Civil Rights Setback into a New Vision of Social Justice (Simon and Schuster: 1998).


 * Lani Guinier
 * Professor of Law
 * Harvard University
 * Cambridge, MA 02138

Please support these two statements with sources.
User:194.215.75.17 added these two statements (among others):

1. During this two week process, she was also made famous as the "object of a modern, instant witch-hunt".

''2. Throughout the process, Guinier was not allowed to defend herself against critics and media who chose select excerpts from her academic work without context, reducing complex legal arguments to simplistic phrases.

These do not sound WP:NPOV. I would like to see these backed up with sources. If they can't be, they need to be removed. Even with sources, I have a feeling they probably will need to be rewritten to include the perspective they originate from. Lawyer2b 06:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)''

Throughout the process, Guinier was not allowed to defend herself against critics and media who chose select excerpts from her academic work without context, reducing complex legal arguments to simplistic phrases.

Number 2 above is simple fact, not really provable because you'd be trying to prove a null hypothesis. We'd have to prove the reverse -- that there were various articles published at the time in which Clinton defended Guinier or in which Guinier corrected/engaged these critics. You won't find any. Virtually every major news source noted that Clinton failed to defend his choice, and that Guinier was not given the hearing in which she would be able to explain her writings to Congress.

She did take the unusual step of going on TV newsshows, as the Times of London later noted, but only to insist on her right to a trial, saying `Fairness requires that I be given an opportunity to present my views in the Senate,' [“Clinton faces liberal backlash as he drops civil rights radical,” The Times (London, England) (6/4/93, p14.] After the fact, Clinton himself "acknowledged that Ms. Guinier had fought until the end to be able to appear before Senate Judiciary Committee to explain her views." [NY Times, 6/4/93 p.A1]

The same news sources tended to repeat phrases like this, also from the Times: "Among other things, Ms Guinier has appeared to challenge the principles of one-man, one-vote, and majority rule, and has advocated extreme measures to increase black political power." Again, please find a reasonably accessible  news source that even tried to address these very complex legal concepts (any of Guinier's writings touch on these ideas).

In late 1993, the cover story of the Columbia Journalism Review (arguably the #1 journalism school in the country) concluded: "Opponents of Lani Guinier's nomination to head the Justice Dept's Civil Rights Division successfully distorted select bits of her previous academic writings and sparked a media frenzy surrounding the candidate. The press was manipulated by political opponents who were quoting Guinier out of context. Media representatives are guilty of not thoroughly researching the writings in question. Instead, a caricaturized representation of Guinier and her philosophies was perpetuated by an uninformed media quick to seize the negative sound bites of her detractors, chief among whom was Clint Bolick." (abstract, Columbia Journalism Review 32:3 (Sept-Oct 1993): p36.

All of which makes Clinton look worse than Lani herself, but that's another story... [--malinchista, 5/31/06]


 * User:Malinchista, everything you just wrote is very interesting but it doesn't establish what you added to the article as a verifiable fact.  At best, it is the opinion of the Columbia Journalism Review and therefore should only be included in wikipedia if it is identified as such.  You seem to have a great source there, though, so why not just include a paraphrasing of what the abstract said along with the citation?  P.S. - Sign your edits! :-)  Lawyer2b 23:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. An article in the CJR is not an opinion but a scholarly conclusion based on an objective, substantive study, reviewed and approved by scholarly peers. It's very much a wiki-approved source. [malinchista, 6/2/06]


 * I agree that an article in the CJR is a scholarly conclusion but it is still an opinion and may or may not be true. See Michael A. Bellesiles for examples of "scholarly conclusions" that were highly contested opinions. Lawyer2b 02:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. if you put four tildes in a row like this: ~, wikipedia will sign your name and put a date stamp.

"'I was ordered by both Justice Department and White House staff not to speak to the press in advance of confirmation hearings. This was the one area in which the White House both took charge and remained unambiguous in its directives: as an executive branch nominee, I must remain silent.' (Guinier, Lift Every Voice (Simon & Schuster, 1998), 50.)" L2b, will you please quit wasting our time? That the media blasted on Lani is not controversial --conservatives are proud of the fact that they derailed a nomination, and liberals are chagrined. Big whoop. Further, I've provided citation after citation and you have provided nothing but "uh uh, I don't think so." Do some research, read another piece of Guinier's work, add something substantive instead of nitpicking at nonexistent slights. Please. Malinchista 08:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel I'm wasting your time, however I'm sure you would agree that an article on someone as important as Ms. Guinier is worthy of making sure wikipedia policy is followed, to wit, that opinion is identified in someway as opinion.


 * Where you and I seem to differ is it appears you believe, "if it can be verified that something was described as a fact in a scholarly journal or by Ms. Guinier, then can be presented as a fact in wikipedia." I believe this is mistaken.  That something can be verified as having been written at all is necessary for it to be included in wikipedia in the first place.  Whether it is presented as the opinion of the original author or as a fact is another matter. For example, that "White House policy forbid her from speaking to the media" is a claim Guinier makes but it is not an established fact.  If actual verifiable orders from the White House could be cited then, it is no longer in the realm of her opinion but rather a fact.  P.S. - Good job on the tildes.  :-) Lawyer2b 23:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Unbelievable. To every one of your queries, I have provided sources documenting Guinier's enforced silence:
 * The London Times
 * New York Times citing Pres. Clinton himself
 * Columbia Journalism Review
 * and finally, Guinier herself in her widely circulated book stating the prohibition (which if untrue, I'm sure the WhiteHouse or some media source would have had a field day with...).
 * [And finally, my own experience living through the nomination process and wondering why no one in the White House tried to counter the media blitz, but that doesn't count...]

All of these are, according to wikipedia,verifiable sources: Verifiability, not truth. One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia, so editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors. "Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true....

And every time, you've provided no substantive argument for a different or additional interpretation; indeed, you've done no work at all. --mali, 6/11


 * User:Malinchista: We disagree on some matters regarding the article yet I believe I have treated your edits and point of view with respect. While I don't believe I have done anything to warrant it I have noted you take a very dismissive tone with me. It may or may not be a violation of wikipedia policy (WP:CIVIL) but it has not been appreciated.  However, calling me lazy in your last edit's summary  is indeed a violation of policy, WP:NPA and I will ask you not do that kind of thing again. Lawyer2b 03:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, L2. I didn't mean to characterize you, but rather my opinion of your behavior as documented on this page. Nevertheless, I'm sorry. I tried to go back and remove the offensive term, but was unable to figure it out..can edit the discussion text, but not the summaryline. Malinchista 19:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)malinchista
 * Thank you for the apology. It is, of course, accepted.  Unfortunately, I don't think the "edit summary" can be changed but it's not a big deal.  I should probably be flattered because, even though you seem to have quite a bit of knowledge (and experience?) of her, you obviously thought of me as part of your "team" editing this article and expected as much me as from you.  From that perspective, I'm sorry to have disappointed you because I have to readily admit that I haven't spent any time researching her or your cites.  That being said, I haven't had time to think over your points and edits and I am not editing the article until I have. Lawyer2b 22:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have read the Communist Columbia Journalism Review article you cite and I believe you have have paraphrased the material in there well. I wish there was something that could be added about the CJR being very left-leaning but perhaps that's something for its own entry.  Lawyer2b 21:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Very funny, L2. I really wish there was a better way to characterize info  than 'left' or 'right.'  It's supposed to be about accuracy, y'know? Malinchista 00:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Tagged, pov
Tagged as pov. Very biased and needs to reference some of the bold statements it makes. Aaрон Кинни (t) 00:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't just randomly mark. Be substantive, make specific suggestions, per wiki policy....[] Malinchista 19:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 'Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it is neutral.


 * If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article.'


 * Would you rather me have left it unmarked? My edits can stay away from the article if that's what you mean to tell me. Oh yes, I also reworded the opening sentence. Which means I did contribute to the article after (or right before) I tagged it. So I threw in my two cents. But I'm no expert on this woman nor the subject matter therein. You may want to find a scholar or someone who actually knows a thing or two about Ms. Guinier. Aaрон Кинни  (t) 09:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

She's a Harvard law prof and was a nominee for Assistant Attorney General of th U.S. for Civil Rights - I don't think it's a stretch to call her one of the leading civil rights scholars in the country. And she talks about growing up biracial, with a Jewish mom and AfrAm dad in pretty much all of her books. Malinchista 07:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Even so, Wikipedia should shy away from such conclusions. We give a subjective introduction then we go on to discuss facts. Not opinions, which is what that sentence was. Aaрон Кинни  (t) 12:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Plus, I've never even heard of the woman, so how can she be a leading civil rights scholar? I bet 75% of Americans haven't even heard her name before. Aaрон Кинни  (t) 12:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Much as it pains me to agree with Malinchista about anything ;-), I think she's right about this one. Also, I don't think your evidence proves anything.  Heck, 75% of Americans don't even go on to higher education let alone know names of leading scholars in various areas.   And, with all due respect, why would your not having heard of her mean anything?  Lawyer2b 21:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Because most of us have heard of famous academics, like Noam Chomsky, etc. To say she's "arguably one of the leading civil rights scholars..." is a bit of a stretch for me. She's relatively unknown across the country. Aaрон Кинни  (t) 23:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure who you mean by "us" (wikipedia editors or the general U.S. populace) but I don't think it makes any difference. I think a leading scholar could be relatively unknown by either group and still be a leading scholar.  That being said, a cite supporting her esteemed position is still a good idea.  I googled "leading scholar lani guinier" and "prominent lani guinier" and there are enough cites to make something good.  I'll leave that to Malinchista since I'm lazy.  ;-) 01:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Teehee. Thanks for the support, L2B; such a good sport! I thought adding "arguably" would make the reference a bit more ambiguous. I didn't say "most popular" or "most well known to 14-year-olds," because she's not. But to her peers, to those in the field of law and civil rights, and certainly, to a former president and attorney general for civil rights, she is clearly a leading figure. Besides, by your[Epee's] logic ("I didn't know her"), no one in atomic science or engineering is "leading" because _I_ don't know them. And if that's true, we're all in trouble.... Malinchista 00:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the reasoning behind making "Jewish Black American" the very first thing we learn about Lani. Certainly, it's relevant, but I think the identification of her mother and father in the third paragraph communicates the same information effectively, and more naturally, in the context of her family heritage. Why don't you move the links down to that sentence instead? Malinchista

Under Wiki standards, generally I would agreee. But the exception is where ethnicity is notable. Here I believe it is. She is, for example, listed under the Wiki list of Black Americans. So my thought would be to leave it in the first line. Tx.--Epeefleche 14:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Tweaked the heading categories a bit to more accurately reflect content. I don't really think the "early life" category makes much sense --I think I would move that up to the intro/overview, and delete the category--or did someone put that there as standard Wikiness? Malinchista

discussion has become moot
The whole argument above is by this late date, moot. The talk page offers all too good a history of what happened to Wikipedia. Malinchista, by late 2007 nobody would take this page as anything more than an essay by you. You think you won, but all that happened is the dream of a fair, collaborative encyclopedia has vanished. And by the way, do you really understand what a "malinchista" is? It hardly seems appropriate for you, given your politics. Profhum 08:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Red-diaper baby
Shouldn't the article mention that Guinier is a "red-diaper baby" (two communist parents)? Black-Jewish couple in the 1940s -- you know her parents met at a CPUSA meeting Kauffner (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Lack of NPOV
This whole article needs more citations and to be completely rewritten by someone other than a freshman for social studies class. It lacks NPOV, is steeped in original research, and is just not up to Wiki standards. I realize it's already been talked about but clearly nothing happened. "She wanted this, she did this..." what is that? What kind of encyclopedic writing is that? And according to who? The prime contributor/writer or an actual verifiable source? If I knew how to tag this or cared enough to start editing I would but I will leave up to someone who knows more about this subject. 144.92.85.41 (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV? edited article to be so
I edited the article to reflect a more balanced nonPOV tone. Please remeber that wikipedia requires NPOV. Media outlets are only considered good sources for either unequivical facts (i.e. it is day outside), or good sources for the fact that a certain POV exists! Many of the arguments in the discussions above miss this crucial point. Whatever the NYT (or the Columbia Journalism Review etc.) says is certainly not considered a fact. Rather, the NYT is a good source for a certain POV. Please familiarize yourself with how wikipedia works, and then I am sure we can reach a solution. 38.117.213.19 (talk) 03:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed NPOV tag, I've edited it to make it more NPOV.
Whoever placed the NPOV tag was right to do so. That section of the article, on Ms. Guinier's nomination, was heavily slanted and biased against Republicans, and had a very non-neutral tone. I changed to make it very, much more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cali11298 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Beware of WP:Sockpuppeting going on at this article
See Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298/Archive. If you see any editing like that, you are dealing with a Cali11298 WP:Sockpuppet. I'm certain that this editor will not quit WP:Sockpuppeting. You can contact Mike V and other WP:CheckUsers if you suspect WP:Sockpuppetry. Or you can, of course, start a WP:Sockpuppet investigation. For anyone it will help, on my user page, I list ways of identifying WP:Sockpuppets. Flyer22 (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lani Guinier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120317070146/http://www.thedefendersonline.com/2009/03/31/balancing-race-and-gender-ldf-women-pioneers/ to http://www.thedefendersonline.com/2009/03/31/balancing-race-and-gender-ldf-women-pioneers/
 * Added tag to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Guinier.1993
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090904040138/http://www.fair.org/extra/best-of-extra/guinier-queen.html to http://www.fair.org/extra/best-of-extra/guinier-queen.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Lani Guinier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020628190009/http://minerscanary.org/mainart/highered.shtml to http://minerscanary.org/mainart/highered.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020628190009/http://minerscanary.org/mainart/highered.shtml to http://minerscanary.org/mainart/highered.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020305223100/http://minerscanary.org/pubs/pubs_by_lani.shtml to http://minerscanary.org/pubs/pubs_by_lani.shtml
 * Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20020923182654/http://www.minerscanary.org/ to http://www.minerscanary.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051031034103/http://www.racetalks.org/indexfla.html to http://www.racetalks.org/indexfla.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead
Hello, I’m here to discuss the lead section summarizing the backlash to Guinier’s AAG nomination. I interpret the current sources cited (and others I have read) as this being led by right-wing politicians and media. However an IP editor has repeatedly changed the descriptor to “bipartisan”. Opinions? CC and  who have read through the entry recently. Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel like "bipartisan" is a stretch but it's complicated. Here's how the NYT frames it:
 * Ms. Guinier was a 43-year-old professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School when President Clinton nominated her for the post of assistant attorney general for civil rights. But she quickly came under fire from Republicans for her progressive views on voting rights and quotas.Her work was not without its liberal critics: Some scholars questioned whether her ideas about voting were in fact democratic, as she claimed, and several Democratic senators voiced their concerns about her nomination to President Clinton.But her Republican opponents also made clear that their campaign was a matter of opportunity. Still stinging from the Supreme Court nomination battles over Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, they were looking for payback, and saw her liberal views as an opportunity to hit the president early in his term.
 * Maybe the best way to deal with it is just to say "but withdrew the nomination" and then make clear in the body that there was a public campaign against her by Republicans and private reservations by some Democrats (as the text currently notes, referring to Ted Kennedy and Carol Moseley-Braun, among others). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply @AleatoryPonderings. That works for me for the lead. Incidentally the “opportunity” bit I think is worth working into the body given one of the people the entry quotes actually said at the time that was the intention (it’s in the obit but here’s the NYT 1993 piece); but I haven’t figured out how to add it smoothly. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)