[quote]
"We're naturally very disappointed that for a case that has been promoted as pro bono for all these years, that the legal firm is attempting to remove from our operating budget such a significant sum of money, which could impact our ability to put those limited resources back into the classroom," spokesman David Tucker said.
[unquote]

Does this spokes-twit expect us to believe that the outcome would have been different if the lawyers had taken the case on a contingent-fee basis instead of pro bono?

This statement seems to imply that SSD figured, "What the hell, why not appeal all the way to SCOTUS, we've got a free shot because it's a pro bono case!"

The Seattle School Board, more than anyone else, needs to feel its self-created pain, and the taxpayers need to understand that the monkeys with whom they entrust monkeyshines cannot engage therein without eventually having to pay the...piper.

The Piper

They may not have charged their clients, but does that mean that the defendants (losers) in this case can reasonably expect not to have to pay court costs?

But you're wrong about the articles "missing the bigger principle". Four of the five articles you cite acknowledge the legal and moral principles behind the claim. (The P-I news article doesn't, but it's just 4 paragraphs.)

And you're missing the main point, which is that a firm that says it's trying to help our kids is disingenuous if it takes $1.8 million from our financially challenged schools to oppose a policy that the schools long ago dropped anyway. Law firms take pro bono work to (ideally) make the world a better place and/or (cynically) to enhance their image and get more business. Davis Wright Tremaine is doing the opposite of both here.

Welcome to the real world Progressives, where real value comes with real costs. Pay up.

The Seattle School District is not a victim. Its policy to provide admission based upon a racial standard is patently unlawful and unconstitutional. Rather than litigate all the way to the SCOTUS, the case should have been settled to minimize the cost exposure. The school district management and their lawyers exercised bad judgment that could cost the district more than $1 million.

The public whining is unjustified. The trial judge will determine how much the plaintiffs recover in attorneys fees from the school district.

Where is the outcry while the environmental movement has been extracting huge legal fees for decades in similar litigation. The Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund managed to destroy much of the forest products industry in Washington in the cause of protecting the spotted owl.

It is ironic that the spotted owl's jeopardy results from the invasive barred owl, who cross- breeds with and preys upon the weaker spotted owl. No matter how much forested area is set aside for habitat, the spotted owl will be extirpated.

Bruce, I see your point, but is Stefan really duplicating here? There is a system in place, so people should use it. At the same time, people like myself want to change the system, limit awards, etc. Can't someone have both opinions in this case?

This sentence would be correct if you'd change "is" to "was" (since the district dropped the policy years ago) and deleted "patently" (since there was significant difference of opinion among legal scholars). Of course, it has been ruled unconstitutional.

From what I can observe, the case is still pro bono as far as the plaintiffs (the Seattle school parents)are concerned. They are not being charged for any legal services.

As a consequence of the unfavorable court verdict, however, the Seattle school district became liable for attorneys' expenses for both sides. Presumedly, Seattle's attorneys disclosed this financial risk to their clients prior to proceeding with the extended litigation. The screams of anguish seem to be a bit disingenuous.

I also fail to see how the children of Seattle would be harmed since they don't pay taxes.

Ken
Dallas

2. This whole law suit is aboout class as much as it is about race. Third Avenue is set to become the major transit point and I can't wait to observe the interactions among all types of folk. The elephant in the room is hip hop culture. Most middle income parents of all colors want their children to receive and learn the skills which will make them successful in this culture and this economy. I expect to receive heat for this next statement, but communities of color are going to have to opt in or be frozen out of this economic system. I have observed many Asian Indians who maintain a cohesive social culture, yet at the same time opt in to the economic system. In my observation, they adapt the mannersisms of the culture which leads to their group's success. The elephant in the room is hip hop. Segregation, in my opinion, is more of an issue in colleges. At the k-12 level, a superior education is paramount.

I believe the funds to pay what I hope, in my opinion, will not turn out to be greedy vultures will come out of the general fund of the school district.

I know I will be corrected if wrong.

I checked wikipedia to see if I miss the gist of "hip-hop culture", and it doesn't appear that I do. Of course wikipedia is not the final authority on everything. Just a thought.

Some other time we can discuss whether you're correct to conflate secularism with liberalism ...

The school board would have also made sure that if the taxpayers came and sued the board members for pursuing an unconstitutional act at a cost to the taxpayers, that the board's director insurance would have them covered as well - else they wouldn't have done it.

They would have to be idiots not to have done both those things and even the liberals in Seattle wouldn't vote for a liberal idiot.

1. Doug, your suposition is what is prudent. You obviously haven't observed Seattle school politics. I don't know, you might be right, but then again, not.

2. Bruce,

Here is an excellent article from the WaPo which describes what I am talking about regarding hip hop culture:

"Black Culture Beyond Hip-Hop

By Thomas Chatterton Williams
Monday, May 28, 2007; Page A17

Over the past three decades black culture has grown so conflated with hip-hop culture that for most Americans under the age of 45, hip-hop culture is black culture. Except that it's not.

During the controversy over Don Imus's comments this spring, the radio host was pilloried for using the same sexist language that is condoned, if not celebrated, in hip-hop music and culture. As the scandal evolved, some critics, including the Rev. Al Sharpton and the NAACP, shifted their attention to the rap industry. Indeed, every couple of years, it seems, we ask ourselves: Is hip-hop poisonous? Is it misogynistic, violent and nihilistic? What kind of message is it sending?

But what critics consistently fail to emphasize in these sporadic storms of opprobrium, as most did during the Imus affair, is that the stakes transcend hip-hop: Black culture itself is in trouble...."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052700926.html

3. Now regarding "conflate secularism with liberalism ..."

Here is an interesting article from a European Journal, the New English Review:

Secular Illusions
by Rebecca Bynum (July 2007)

In a recent episode of The Sopranos, a suicidal and despairing child begs of his parents,

"What's the point?"

"Point o' what?" came the reply.

And so it is in our modern culture: the meaning of life is so far buried beneath the generalized pursuit of material well-being, that the "point of it all" is no longer seriously considered by the average person. Those who think along these lines are likely judged mentally disturbed and are often medicated for depression as was the boy in the television series. "Don't think those thoughts, take this medication and then you'll feel better," seems to be the most common response to modern existential angst.

The reasons for this lack of societal response to the basic most human questions are deeper than a simple fear of the answer provided by scientific materialism; namely that there is no point to life. Rather, the methodology of science has actually usurped the places formerly held by philosophy, poetry, art and religion in human experience. The result is a secularism which verges into materialism and denies both the meaning and value of life and of the individual.

Secularism began as a justified revolt against the religious authoritarianism of the Middle Ages and has resulted in a great flowering of human thought and unparalleled technological progress. The United States Constitution, for example, in disallowing the merging of religious and state institutions, effectively ignores the existence of God, but has nonetheless allowed religion to flourish in America for over two hundred years.

Recently, however, secularism has adopted an openly hostile attitude toward religion, even seeking its abolition in favor of deterministic materialism, which upon examination, is found to be no less an ideology. Paul Belien reports on the intemperate tone this attitude has taken in Europe:

According to a report of the CoE's Parliamentary Assembly, creationists are dangerous "religious fundamentalists" who propagate "forms of religious extremism" and "could become a threat to human rights." The report adds that the acceptance of the science of evolutionism "is crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies."

"Creationism, born of the denial of the evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon," the report says.

"Today creationist theories are tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few Council of Europe member states. [...] [T]his is liable to encourage the development of all manner of fundamentalism and extremism, synonymous with attacks of utmost virulence on human rights. The total rejection of science is definitely one of the most serious threats to human rights and civic rights. [...] The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism which are closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements. The creationist movements possess real political power. The fact of the matter, and this has been exposed on several occasions, is that the advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy. [...] If we are not careful, the values that are the very essence of the Council of Europe will be under direct threat from creationist fundamentalists."

According to the CoE report, America and Australia are already on their way towards becoming such undemocratic theocracies where human and civic rights are endangered. Creationism is "well-developed in the English-speaking countries, especially the United States and Australia," the report states.

"While most curricula in Europe today unashamedly teach evolution as a recognised scientific theory, the same does not apply to the United States. In July 2005, the Pew Research Center conducted a poll that showed that 64% of Americans favoured the teaching of intelligent design...."

http://www.newenglishreview.org/print.cfm?pg=custpage&frm=8727&sec_id=8727

I think from the standpoint of practical politics, the terms are used interchangably.

Why do you think "from the standpoint of practical politics" secularism = liberalism? The term "secularism" doesn't even arise in politics except in church/state issues. Liberalism, of course, is much more pervasive. It is true that secularism and religion are battling, but it's not clear that they're battling more now than throughout history. I suppose that in general secularism and liberalism have both been forces for change while the religious establishment has sought to preserve the status quo, so in that sense secularlism and liberalism share something. But many religious leaders have been forces for change as well -- MLK Jr. for one.

On a philosophical level, I challenge the question "What is the point (i.e., purpose or goal) of life?". This is a loaded question. Purposes are opinions/desires of indivduals, so if you ask the question as if there is a universal answer, you imply that there is a universal answerer (i.e., God) whose opinion matters. I certainly have goals for my own life, but I don't think some higher being has his/her own goals in mind for me. If you believe in God, of course, then the question makes sense. Arguably this is a way that religion has helped civilizations advance.

No we don't agree, the music is a huge part of the problem. First, like the drug industry, the profits are huge. Second, it would be calling it a blessing to say hip hop music promotes secular progressive values, it promotes criminal intent and activity. Much as I like Seattle Jew and I geniunely like him even though we don't agree, we have little in common. I have posted this article before but it so good, why not repeat it:

From Clinton, Hip-Hop Hypocrisy

By Colbert I. King
Saturday, April 21, 2007; Page A17

Put me in the camp of those who implore Sen. Hillary Clinton to give it back -- "it" being the reported $800,000 that's sitting in her presidential campaign coffers thanks to a fundraiser hosted in her honor March 31 in the Pinecrest, Fla., home of a huge Clinton fan who refers to himself as Timbaland.

In response to my questions, Clinton campaign spokesman Blake Zeff said in an e-mail this week that it cost $1,000 just to get into Timbaland's fundraiser, that about 200 guests were on hand and that the senator was accompanied by former president Bill Clinton...."

Further in the article:

Hip hop thug and Hillary friend Timbaline has this to say:

Check out Timbaland's latest album, "Timbaland Presents Shock Value."

Here are lyrics from the track "Come and Get Me":

"Nigga Your Time Is Up, I Aint Come To Kid You
I Knew You Niggas Was Dumb, But How Dumb Is You . . .
I'm A Ride Or Die Nigga, I Be Tearing [expletive] Up
We Aint Like Them Other Fools, Who Don't Compare To Us
All The Hoes Love A Nigga, They be Backing It Up
But Me I Love Money I Be Stacking It Up . . .
I'm Rich I Can Pay To Have You Six Feet Deep (Nigga)"

And from his track "Kill Yourself":

" . . . most of u rap niggas is hoes to me,
wherever u from
the question I ask
is do u think I give a [expletive] . . .
u mad at me? cuz im getting rich,
well put the pistol to ur head and empty the clip, pop nigga!"

And how about this little ditty, "Considerate Brotha," from an earlier recording:

". . . Hoes coming up short? Hoes finna get cursed out!
. . . Slam the mask out of these hoes and they say, 'What is that, velvet?'
And they betta meet they quota, betta yet betta meet they deadline . . . I'm a pimp all around
A pimp of the town -- we pimpin 'em up, HOES DOWN."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/20/AR2007042001589.html

No, Bruce, we don't agree now or probably EVER.
Tell girlfriend, Hillary to give the blood money back. Oh, wait, she only returns donations when the "accused" attempts sucide on a train and cuts a deal with the Feds. I can only hope in the case of Timbaline.

Let's cut the crap and get right to the chase. Secular progressives like you and Soros have an agenda. You want your view of society to provail. Fair enough, at least for my community, I want my view of society to provail. It is unabashedly based on faith principles and no, Sally or Fred doesn't have two mommies or two daddies. I am focusing on my community. Got a problem with that?

Just like I don't understand how you and Seattle Jew are atheists, you probably aren't going to get that there are a bunch of us folks that just don't agree with your view of the world. No, we do not agree.

I want my view of society to provail (sic) ... I am focusing on my community. Got a problem with that?

Yes, if your view targets other communities for discrimination when they aren't hurting anyone. Target hip hop music if you wish, but you have no moral right to target gay couples. Not all world views are morally equivalent.

Just like I don't understand how you and Seattle Jew are atheists, you probably aren't going to get that there are a bunch of us folks that just don't agree with your view of the world.

Ah, but I do understand your world view, and I totally "get" that some people disagree. Part of being a constructive citizen is understanding -- though not necessarily agreeing with -- other world views.

Yes we disagree on the effect of music or probably on the effect of video games like Grand Theft Auto. There is so much money in that garbarge that many "respectable citizens" often get a cut.

Cut the b.s., I'm not targeting gay couples, I simply believe that in my community kids do best and thrive in a heterosexual couple arrangement. For Black childen, the research backs me up.
You talking about my morals, as a secular progressive, oh pleeeze. When you tell Hillary to give back the blood money, I might just be interested in anything you say.

Last time we conversed, I called you a weasel. My opinion hasn't changed.

Really? I figured you'd think of me more as a dwarf chimpanzee, the species has the highest rate of immorality by your standards (sexual behavior -- I couldn't find anything about animals' religious beliefs or musical preferences). I kind of like weasels.

Some people may be confused by the terms pro bono PUBLICO and PUBLIC school. The word "public" in these two terms do not mean the same thing. In the term pro bono publico, public means the general citizenry - "for the public good." In the term public school, public means owned and controlled by the government, as opposed to private entities.

Whether government owned and run services (schools, parcel delivery, transportation, security, health care, media, etc.) are better or more efficient than privately provided services is a central dividing line between red and blue America. But I know never to assume that a "public" (goverment) agency necessarily acts in the public interest. Private agencies may or may not act in my interest, but if they don't, they sure as hell won't have me as a client or customer for long.

Sure, it would be nice if the law firm donated these fees back to the city treasury (perhaps on the condition that the entire School Board resign). But the blame lies squarely with the Seattle School Board whose policies violated the constitution.

Really? I figured you'd think of me more as a dwarf chimpanzee, the species has the highest rate of immorality by your standards (sexual behavior -- I couldn't find anything about animals' religious beliefs or musical preferences). I kind of like weasels.

And is there any evidence -- beyond anecdotal -- of a cause-and-effect relationship between hip hop music, violent video games, and real-world violence? I think not, but perhaps you have better data. I wouldn't let my kids do either (or at least I'd scrutinize the hip hop lyrics first), and I share your concern about them. The question is whether you should waste your time and energy fighting against these things -- a fight doomed to failure given the right of free speech -- or address the root causes of the culture of non-achievement. You have written insightfully about the problem, so I would expect the latter from you.

-the District AND Davis Wright Tremaine did know, early on, that if the plaintiffs prevailed then DWT would ask for fees. However, neither party told the general public (and I know this because I checked with the education reporters at both newspapers). If Seattle Public Schools had said it, it might have given pause to those who supported the case. DWT wanted to look like good guys and did not fully explain pro bono nor did the plaintiffs. Shame on both sides.

-Settle the case? Well, that would have meant not using race in this particular assignment plan. The District was under pressure, from the feds, to prove they had desegregated the schools and this was their attempt. The District, via the Supreme Court decision, was proven wrong BUT the District was NOT willfully breaking any law and was, in fact, trying to work to the letter of the law.

-This case did NOT settle the issue of using race in assignments. Justice Kennedy left that door wide open and even gave suggestions. Those who believe it is done are wrong as evidenced by the number of public schools and colleges that still use race in assignments.

-the costs - some will be borne by insurance and likely the rest will come out of the general fund. DWT is being coy over whether they will stop billing the district as well as whether they will donate some of the fees back via the Alliance for Education. The fact that the Times, their client, would publicly tweak them seems to mean they are feeling a lot of heat. One good thing, no one will ever, after this case, pat law firms on the back for their "pro bono" work.

-Lastly, and probably the most sad, after all the shouting, what did the QA/Magnolia parents get? Well, they got the initial relief they sought from the case by the District stopping the use of the tiebreaker upon the filing of the lawsuit. The District NEVER used it again. Then, a board director at the time, Don Nielson, created the Center School, allegedly to give them a high school. The Center School is a sweet, boutique high school that serves no purpose except to cost the District money (they have to rent the space). It is not a comprehensive high school (which is what the QA/Magnolia parents want and why they didn't fight the creation of the Center School is beyond me) and not even big enough (300 students).

Then, the parents won their lawsuit and that particular use of race in that particular assignment plan can never be used. Bravo!
But...they still have no high school to call their own AND they still want one. Cooler heads should have prevailed (on both sides) and all this would have been prevented.

The single worst mistake for SPS was selling the land that QA High School sat on. And I get that these parents want someplace reasonably close to go to. But with all their machinations, it doesn't make me particularly inclined to support their wishes.

Solid points, all (though I might quibble with the notion that SPS was acting in good faith; I think the case can be made that they had ample warning that their policy was an impermissible use of race).

In particular, your first point answers the question I pondered @2, and I thank you for sharing that information.

At the end of the day, I think what this case demonstrates is the attitude common to government school systems: "Screw you, we're right, and we don't have to listen to you, because you have nowhere else to go".

An attitude that could be dealt with swiftly and effectively, by simply removing the government monopoly on public (read "pro bono publico"; hat tip to Steve @24) schools.

The fact that the LOSING DEFENDANT happens to be a governmental entity makes no difference. Nor does the fact that the LOSING DEFENDANT ordinarily serves a public good, or is run by compassionate liberals, or drives zero emission vehicles, or loves animals, or is multiculturally diverse and eschews trans fats....

Will the Seattle public school students and taxpayers bear the burden of the legal costs - indeed they likely will. But have you ever heard the arguement that legal fees and fines should be waived for a big corporation caught violating the law because their employees, customers and stockholders will ultimately bear the burden?

This whole brouhaha is based upon the (unstated) premise that a government agency, especially one run by left wing do-gooders, can never be in the wrong.

Thank you for the clarification on cost. Ewaggin, the public school monopoly strikes again.

This is the definition of weasel:

weasel
Main Entry: 1wea·sel
Pronunciation: 'wE-z&l
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural weasels
Etymology: Middle English wesele, from Old English weosule; akin to Old High German wisula weasel
1 or plural weasel : any of various small slender active carnivorous mammals (genus Mustela of the family Mustelidae, the weasel family) that are able to prey on animals (as rabbits) larger than themselves, are mostly brown with white or yellowish underparts, and in northern forms turn white in winter -- compare ERMINE 1a
2 : a light self-propelled tracked vehicle built either for traveling over snow, ice, or sand or as an amphibious vehicle
3 : a sneaky, untrustworthy, or insincere person

Number 3 is what I was referring to. Secular progressives, like you and Soros view my community as useful idiots for your agenda. Other than the fact that you want Blacks dumb, dependent, and dependable, you have no other use for the community. Inferior schools and the promotion of hip hop further the Soros agenda.

Regarding donors, gee, Hillary gave the Hu money back. Hip hop culture and secular progressives are death to my community. Hillary knows this. Does she ever talk "Southern" when she is addressing a business group and not at a Black church?

We can't even agree to disagree on this one. So, it hasn't been nice conversing with you.

Call me names, whatever. But how dare you attribute such repugnant views to me!

If some people believe rich lawyers should not charge the poor school distict - how about the law firm that represented the school district and lost the case pay the fees of the winning law firm. Or the districts insurance company.

Lest anyone think I am overly sympathetic to lawyers, I am actually the diametrical opposite (a physician).

Perhaps Shark could cut them off.

My apologizes.

"And Bruce and WVH - why not just exchange email addresses so you can continue this juvenile bickering without bothering the rest of us. We are trying to have a civil and civic discussion.

Perhaps Shark could cut them off."

Now, as for this description, either you haven't been reading other threads or you are fairly new here. If you want juvenile, go to some of the archives.

I really don't want to exchange e-mail addresses as I have made my views perfectly clear.