DailyKenn.com | AbateHate.com | Facebook Group
The above image is deceiving. Of the 100 top law school admissions, only 0.3% are black. The image above, however, illustrates 100 students of whom one whole person is black. That's three times more blacks than reality.
The other 99 students pictured more accurately illustrate the racial makeup of the top 100 law school admissions. 82 are white, 15 are East Asian, and two are Hispanic.
In other words, only one of the top 300 top law school admissions is black.
Where did I find these statistics?
I found them from Law School Admission Council (LSAC) data. It reveals these stark racial disparities in elite scores of 170 or greater.
White: Approximately 82.5%
Asian American/Pacific Islander: Approximately 15.6%
Hispanic/Latino: Approximately 1.6%
Black: Approximately 0.3%
[source]
These gaps, amplified in the upper tail, persist over time, limiting diversity in top law schools and the legal profession despite ongoing equity debates.
Consider this. In contrast, President Joe Biden confirmed a total of 235 Article III federal judges (including 1 Supreme Court justice) by the end of his term. When a count was made of the first 200:
White: Approximately 36–38%
Asian American/Pacific Islander: Approximately 14–17.5
Hispanic/Latino: Approximately 16–18%
Your $8 monthly partner pledge helps us reach others & more ►
 |
| A sample of Biden's judges |
With meme in hand, I set out to search the vast reaches of the world wide web to find the real numbers. Could it really be that only one-third of one black person landed in the top 100 of elite prospective law students? (Or one whole black person in the top 300?)
That's exactly what I uncovered.
I also discovered that Joe Biden's DEI-fueled judicial appointments neglected our country by preferring brown berries over the best berries.
In the competitive world of law school admissions, the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) serves as a critical gatekeeper, with scores above 170 often unlocking doors to top-tier institutions like Harvard, Yale, and Stanford.
Your $8 monthly partner pledge helps us reach others & more ►
However, a closer examination of performance data reveals stark racial and ethnic disparities in these elite score bands. According to aggregated statistics from the Law School Admission Council (LSAC), which administers the test, White and Asian test-takers overwhelmingly dominate the highest echelons, comprising approximately 82.5% and 15.6% of scorers at 170 or above, respectively. In contrast, Hispanic test-takers account for just 1.6%, and black test-takers a mere 0.3%.
These
figures, derived from LSAC's own reports, highlight persistent gaps
that raise the ire of woke leftists who deem "meritocracy" to be the
epitome of evil. They don't want quality. They want equality, as defined
by them.
Understanding the LSAC Data
The LSAC
periodically releases technical reports detailing LSAT performance
across demographic groups, providing a foundation for analyzing these
disparities. For the 2022-2023 testing year, average scores among U.S.
test-takers were 154.15 for Whites, 155.01 for Asians, 146.75 for
Hispanics/Latinos, and 143.64 for Blacks/African Americans, with
standard deviations ranging from 9.54 to 10.96 points across groups.
These mean differences, while seemingly modest, amplify dramatically in
the upper tail of the distribution due to the bell-curve nature of
standardized test scores.
In short, the LSAC affirms the bell curve, an abomination to the woke left.
Using normal distribution approximations—a standard method for estimating tail probabilities—the proportion of test-takers achieving 170+ within each group varies significantly: around 4.8% for Whites, 8.6% for Asians, 0.9% for Hispanics, and 0.35% for Blacks. When adjusted for the demographic composition of the test-taking population (Whites at about 50%, Asians 9%, Hispanics 11%, and Blacks 12%), the resulting breakdown closely mirrors the cited dominance: Whites and Asians making up nearly 98% of elite scorers, leaving minimal representation for other groups.
The
reasonable conclusion is that whites and East Asians are more
intelligent than other races. That is anathema to the far left that
seeks to find social injustice where none exists. That is because social
injustice is the foundational thesis of Marxism. Where there is no
social injustice, there can be no class struggle, making Marxism moot.
This
pattern is not new. Earlier LSAC reports, such as those covering
2017-2021 and 2011-2018, show similar mean score gaps, underscoring that
these disparities have persisted over time despite efforts to diversify
legal education. The far left attempts to focus on factors like
socioeconomic background, access to quality education, and test
preparation resources. But these elements don't cause disparity. Rather,
they are the end product of low intelligence. The data consistently
points to systemic inequities in high-achievement outcomes. That, in
turn, points to an intelligence disparity.
Academic Studies Shed Light on Underlying Causes
Beyond raw LSAC statistics, scholarly research has delved into why these gaps exist. A notable 2011 study in the California Law Review,
titled "Does the LSAT Mirror or Magnify Racial and Ethnic Differences
in Educational Attainment?", examined LSAT scores among college
graduates from elite institutions with comparable GPAs. Even after
controlling for academic credentials and school prestige, significant
racial disparities remained, with Whites and Asians outperforming Blacks
and Hispanics. The authors argued that the test may exacerbate
pre-existing educational inequalities rather than simply reflecting
them, potentially due to cultural biases in question design or
differences in test-taking strategies.
The
woke left tends to find what it's looking for: social injustice. But in
a free society, life is the ultimate intelligence test. People with the
highest intelligence tend to have the highest household incomes. In the
'life intelligence test,' East Asians come out on top in the USA with
the highest income per household. Whites follow closely in second place
followed by Hispanic/Latinos and blacks consistently "scoring" at the
bottom.
Other analyses reinforce this. For instance, percentile
breakdowns by race reveal that a score of 170-174 places a test-taker in
the 99.71st percentile among Blacks (meaning only about 0.29% achieve
it or higher), compared to the 97.61st percentile for Whites (about
2.39% above).
Such findings may suggest that. while the LSAT is a reliable predictor of first-year law school performance overall, its score distributions disproportionately disadvantage underrepresented minorities in the race for top admissions spots.
Marxism offers a solution: Replace qualified whites and East Asians with less qualified blacks and other non-whites. That is effectively what Joe Biden did when choosing judges. It's akin to replacing the most talented sopranos in a choir with less gifted sopranos, just so the choir will be color adjusted to fit the misguided musings of Marxists. The outcome effects the sound of the entire choir, or in this analogy, culture.
Oddly, the far left has no interest in color balancing college basketball teams.
Media Coverage and Public Discourse
These
disparities have not gone unnoticed in the press, where they often fuel
debates on affirmative action, test optional policies, and diversity in
the legal field. A 2006 report from *The Journal of Blacks in Higher
Education* (JBHE) analyzed 2004 LSAT data, finding that only 0.3% of
Black test-takers scored 170 or above, versus 3.1% of Whites. This
translated to just 29 Black high scorers out of over 10,000, compared to
more than 1,900 Whites—making Whites 66 times more likely to reach
elite levels.
That's not systemic racism. It's nature. Is nature guilty of systemic racism?
More
recent coverage echoes these concerns. A 2022 op-ed in the *Los Angeles
Times* highlighted how LSAT gaps—153 on average for Whites and Asians
versus 142 for Blacks and 146 for Latinos—hinder diversity in law
schools and the profession at large. Similarly, a 2025 article in the ABA Journal
discussed how these imbalances affect merit-based scholarships, with
over 40% of White and Asian applicants receiving aid tied to high
scores, far outpacing rates for Hispanics and Blacks.
Once
again, nature is guilty of racial discrimination. That, in turn,
divides us into two camps: those who advocate for merit and those who
advocate for color balance. If merit, then let nature chose the best and
brightest law school candidate. If color, then I want my spot on the
basketball team.
A 2021 Bloomberg Law piece linked LSAT
disparities to downstream effects, such as bar exam pass rates (88% for
Whites versus 66% for Blacks on the first attempt), attributing much of
the issue to upstream testing inequities. Online discussions, including a
2024 X (formerly Twitter) visualization of LSAC data and Reddit threads
in communities like r/BlackLawAdmissions, frequently reference these
exact percentages, amplifying calls for reform.
It's
nature vs nurture. Upstream to the woke left means social discrimation
based on race. To realists, upstream is genetics; that is, inherent and
immutable predispositions. Fact. I can't play basketball. I never could.
I don't deserve a place on the team. And if I were placed on the team,
the black player I replace doesn't deserve to be eliminated.
Implications for Legal Education and Beyond
The
dominance of Whites and Asians in top LSAT scores has broader
ramifications. It contributes to underrepresentation in prestigious law
firms, judiciary roles, and policy-making positions, perpetuating cycles
of inequality. Critics argue that relying heavily on the LSAT may
overlook holistic talents, while proponents maintain it's an objective
measure of analytical skills essential for legal success.
The underrepresentation of less-qualified law school applicants reflects intentional discrimination based on qualifications. I fail to see the problem. Maybe I should be placed on the team after all. My holistic talents have been overlooked.
As law schools grapple with post-affirmative
action landscapes following recent Supreme Court rulings, some have
adopted test-optional policies or alternative assessments to broaden
applicant pools. That is, they're cheating. Even with addressing
imaginary root causes — like unequal K-12 education and access to
tutoring—these gaps will endure.
In conclusion, LSAC data and
supporting studies paint a clear picture: elite LSAT scores remain
largely the domain of White and Asian test-takers, with Hispanics and
Blacks vastly underrepresented. The test itself is not the culprit. Its
outcomes underscore the need for to set aside the denial of race
realism.
The numbers are evidence. The verdict is: Blacks, in the aggregate, have significantly lower IQs than other racial groups.
To my under-qualified black readers, I offer this proposal: You stay out of law school and I'll forego my dream of an NBA career.
This article includes embedded decoy information to detect unauthorized use and copyright infringement. Reproduction is permitted only verbatim and in full, with all links preserved and attribution clearly given to DailyKenn.com and AbateHate.com.
Your $8 monthly partner pledge helps us reach others & more ►
Find archived black-on-white homicide news reports here ►
200 latest news reports from 100 top conservative websites