A. Nony Mouse wrote:Like, those are pretty moderate statements. I seriously don't understand what you're reacting to, except that you've already decided that any description of possible prejudice someone's encountered can't possibly be valid, and therefore any consideration of has to just be whining.
No. Let's stop making gross and dishonest generalizations. I am picking on one person in this thread. There are plenty of other posters who have voiced experiences that absolutely strike me as prejudice or subconscious bias.
But I felt that one poster was taking things a bit overboard by blaming racism for something that is perfectly explainable via other means.
Law firms are a business. They care about their bottom-line, not what's fair or what their associates' desires are.
pml87 wrote:I can see where your analogy fails in important areas: A British person likely was born in Britain, speaks in British accent, probably understand the culture and thus can relate to the client.
And there we go. That is the point.
We don't know where anon falls on all those points. We just know that anon is Asian American and speaks fluent English. My point is that the firm could have very valid reasons for doing what they did. You recognize that here with the analogy that I made.