Yay Diversity! (Sigh)
Law, like other elite professions, is built on the myth of meritocracy in which only the best and brightest get admitted into its pearly gates. But under the surface of that myth is the unspoken belief that diversity is somehow antithetical to quality.
May 21, 2019 at 04:02 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
I love those nerdy Pew Research Center surveys because they provide such fascinating snapshots of how conflicted and confused Americans are on a host of issues.
The latest one is on American attitudes about racial and ethic diversity, and the section on workplace diversity should strike a chord with those in the legal profession.
In a nutshell, Pew finds that a majority of Americans believe diversity is a worthwhile goal, but ”few endorse the idea of taking race or ethnicity into consideration in hiring and promotions.”
In other words, we like diversity in theory but just don't want to tinker directly with the hard, messy stuff—which, of course, is race and ethnicity.
First, let me list some of the relevant findings from this survey of 6,637 adults in the United States (Pew notes that Asian responses are not broken out separately because of their small sample size):
- 75% say it is “very or somewhat important” for companies and organizations to promote diversity.
- Blacks tend to say that diversity is “very important” in the workplace—67% say so vs. 52% of Hispanics and 43% of whites.
- Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say it's “very important” for employers to promote racial and ethnic diversity at work (64% of Democrats vs. 29% of Republicans).
- Though the vast majority of whites (78%) say that employers should only consider a person's qualifications for hiring and promotions, that view was also shared by a majority of Hispanics (69%) and blacks (54%).
A general theme running throughout the entire survey is that Democrats have a more positive view of diversity than Republicans. For instance, 77% of Democrats vs. 50% Republicans say that diversity has a positive impact on the country's culture. Another fun fact: 47% of Republicans say it bothers them to hear a foreign language in public, while 18% of Democrats express the same antipathy.
So how does all this relate to Big Law? Well, that notion that diversity is a worthwhile goal but that race and ethnicity should not be considered—lest a minority candidate bumps out someone truly deserving—reminds me of what law firms frequently say about their poor diversity records. How often do I hear, “Oh, we can't compromise on our standards,” when I press firms about their failure to hire or elevate minorities?
Law, like other elite professions, is built on the myth of meritocracy in which only the best and brightest get admitted into its pearly gates. All that obsession with law school rankings, grades, law reviews! But under the surface of that myth is the unspoken belief that diversity is somehow antithetical to quality.
What's disturbing about the Pew survey is not only how vested whites are in the myth but how minorities have bought into the same hype, too. It's become unseemly to factor in race—as if we live in a society in which people are judged solely on abilities.
That's a nice belief, except we are so not there. (May I remind you of that famous study by consulting firm Nextions in which partners from 22 firms were asked to rate a research memo by a fictitious associate—one black, one white? You'll recall that the white associate got a 4.1 grade out of 5, while the African American got a 3.2.)
Finally, there was this little nugget from the Pew survey: “A majority (74%) says employers should only take a person's qualifications into account when making these decisions, even if it results in less diversity in the workplace.”
Got that? We want diversity, but only if it doesn't challenge the status quo too much.
Perhaps I lack imagination, but how are we supposed to make a dent on diversity anytime soon—say in the next 50 years—if race is off-limits?
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRecord Live Event Attendance Prompts Need To Revisit Insurance Policies
4 minute readAdapting for Success: Strategic Insights for Law Firms in 2025 and Beyond
Less Is More: The Risks of Excessive Data Collection from Mobile Devices
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1What Does Ohio Supreme Court's Opioid Decision Mean for Public Nuisance Claims?
- 2Bucking Industry Trend, Sidley Austin Elects Biggest Class of Partners in Firm History
- 3US Judge Throws Out Sale of Infowars to The Onion. But That's Not the End of the Road for Sandy Hook Families
- 4‘Really Deflating’: Judges React to Biden Threat to Veto New Judgeships Bill
- 53 Incidents Lead to Charges Against the Alexander Brothers; Cousin Remains at Large
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250