Are Straight White Males Not Part of Diversity? Forum

[Jay-Electronica]

Edit: You're missing my point. Its both retarded and depressing to label a single candidate as diverse or not.

Diverse in this context actually means "increasing diversity" which in turn means "getting someone unlike who we usually get". Since law firms typically hire straight white males and have a pretty large supply of them, then yes, "diverse" typically means hiring people who are not straight white males.

It is kind of depressing though, because such a system means that minority candidates are assumed by folks to be hired because they're "diverse" and not because, you know, they're right for the job.

And thats why it hurts them more than anyone...but shhhh...dont say anything, or you're racist....

How does giving a "diverse" candidate a job that pays astronomical wages as opposed to not having a job hurting them? And why is it always the assumption that the firm is always, only hiring said candidate because of diversity and not both diversity and him being "right for the job"?

[Oblomov]

No, straight white males are not 'diverse' in the world of large law firms; they are the overwhelming majority.

This is just plain wrong.

41% of students at a top 50 law school are white males. It's not that wrong.

See: http://www.deloggio.com/diversty/race.html

41% approximates an overwhelming majority to you? That's curious.*




*Biglaw is probably whiter, straighter and YX-er, but it's still not an "overwhelming majority."

[PDaddy]

If you apply to Howard, FAMU, UPR or Miami, then maybe StrWM are part of "diversity" within those limited settings. As it stands, they are not part of diversity b/c they are part of "ubiquity".

[dp73816]

Edit: You're missing my point. Its both retarded and depressing to label a single candidate as diverse or not.

Diverse in this context actually means "increasing diversity" which in turn means "getting someone unlike who we usually get". Since law firms typically hire straight white males and have a pretty large supply of them, then yes, "diverse" typically means hiring people who are not straight white males.

It is kind of depressing though, because such a system means that minority candidates are assumed by folks to be hired because they're "diverse" and not because, you know, they're right for the job.

And thats why it hurts them more than anyone...but shhhh...dont say anything, or you're racist....

How does giving a "diverse" candidate a job that pays astronomical wages as opposed to not having a job. And why is it always the assumption that the firm is always, only hiring said candidate because of diversity and not both diversity and him being "right for the job"?

Look, we all have seen this discussion countless times and heard multiple defenses for and against...you can rationalize it any way you want, but it still remains a problem when an employer even has to think about such a decision - in this day and age, it simply shouldnt be.

[PDaddy]

Edit: You're missing my point. Its both retarded and depressing to label a single candidate as diverse or not.

Diverse in this context actually means "increasing diversity" which in turn means "getting someone unlike who we usually get". Since law firms typically hire straight white males and have a pretty large supply of them, then yes, "diverse" typically means hiring people who are not straight white males.

It is kind of depressing though, because such a system means that minority candidates are assumed by folks to be hired because they're "diverse" and not because, you know, they're right for the job.

And thats why it hurts them more than anyone...but shhhh...dont say anything, or you're racist....

How does giving a "diverse" candidate a job that pays astronomical wages as opposed to not having a job hurting them? And why is it always the assumption that the firm is always, only hiring said candidate because of diversity and not both diversity and him being "right for the job"?

Exactly, diversity and merit are NOT mutually exclusive concepts. This, I want law applicants to understand.

[hotdoglaw]

i am a diverse.

[Jay-Electronica]

Look, we all have seen this discussion countless times and heard multiple defenses for and against...you can rationalize it any way you want, but it still remains a problem when an employer even has to think about such a decision - in this day and age, it simply shouldnt be.

[/quote]

We dont live in an ideal world, my friend.

[Oblomov]

.

[dp73816]

Look, we all have seen this discussion countless times and heard multiple defenses for and against...you can rationalize it any way you want, but it still remains a problem when an employer even has to think about such a decision - in this day and age, it simply shouldnt be.

We dont live in an ideal world, my friend.[/quote]


Says someone reaping the benefits of said disparity - remember that before you try to preach its rationality

[Joga Bonito]

I know it sux, but you just have to deal. You know what it takes to get what you want, then just go for it and do it. If that means you have to get a higher LSAT, better GPA, etc. then that is what you'll have to do. Is it fair? No, but life isn't fair. We aren't all born with the same strengths and weaknesses mentally and physically, so any competitive process is inherently unfair. I wouldn't stress about it too much. It isn't going to change in the land of hope and change.

I, personally, think we need to diversify the rap music community. The amount of gays, asians, whites and american indians is abysmal. Where are all the gaysian rappers? That community has a history of racism and record labels should work to correct it now.

Ohhh poor white men... it's so hard being a white man in America, one has to face AA, not being able to say the n word in front of black people and not being respected as a rapper. Oh no they're so oppressed.

[KibblesAndVick]

Jesus Christ was a white male, Dane Earnhardt was a white male, and my father was a white male. And if yous got a problem with that then yous got a problem with me.

But seriously, if you are actually diverse "on the inside" rather than just in ethnicity, gender, ect. you should be able to write a nice personal statement and interview well. Also, you're statistically much more likely to have connections in the legal world (not that you necessarily do, but if we're debating diversity within the legal system it's broader than just you).

If you think about it, you're actually benefiting from living in a society that privileges masculinity (not just males) and historically white European social values (again we place a premium on these values much more than these people). I am assuming that you're a male of white European decent. This leads me to assume you were raised on these values and it's easy for you to live them. You're bitching about winning the circumstance lottery...

[orphanarium]

...

[Kobe_Teeth]

But seriously, if you are actually diverse "on the inside" rather than just in ethnicity, gender, ect. you should be able to write a nice personal statement and interview well. Also, you're statistically much more likely to have connections in the legal world (not that you necessarily do, but if we're debating diversity within the legal system it's broader than just you).

Though I understand OP's frustration, TITCR.

[TigerBeer]

Jesus Christ was not a white male. How does anyone educated still believe that?

[Joga Bonito]

Jesus Christ was a white male, Dane Earnhardt was a white male, and my father was a white male. And if yous got a problem with that then yous got a problem with me.

But seriously, if you are actually diverse "on the inside" rather than just in ethnicity, gender, ect. you should be able to write a nice personal statement and interview well. Also, you're statistically much more likely to have connections in the legal world (not that you necessarily do, but if we're debating diversity within the legal system it's broader than just you).

If you think about it, you're actually benefiting from living in a society that privileges masculinity (not just males) and historically white European social values (again we place a premium on these values much more than these people). I am assuming that you're a male of white European decent. This leads me to assume you were raised on these values and it's easy for you to live them. You're bitching about winning the circumstance lottery...

Jesus wasn't a white male...didn't you watch that special on A&E. He wasn't black either..but he wasn't white.

[Pearalegal]

41% approximates an overwhelming majority to you? That's curious.*




*Biglaw is probably whiter, straighter and YX-er, but it's still not an "overwhelming majority."

Because you seem so sure of yourself here, please define "overwhelming majority."

I would say when you consider the fact that all the other groups combine to make up the 49% of the rest of the pool, then yes...that counts as a solid majority.

[dp73816]

Jesus Christ was not a white male. How does anyone educated still believe that?

Because the white stereotype of someone arguing against societies trend these days is obviously an ignorant southerner

[TigerBeer]

Jesus Christ was not a white male. How does anyone educated still believe that?

Because the white stereotype of someone arguing against societies trend these days is obviously an ignorant southerner

Uh what are you trying to say here

[Jay-Electronica]

Jesus Christ was not a white male. How does anyone educated still believe that?

Exactly. People still dont know this, why? Because they are indoctrinated by the majority that wants to perpetuate this lie

[Borhas]

Jesus Christ was a white male, Dane Earnhardt was a white male, and my father was a white male. And if yous got a problem with that then yous got a problem with me.

But seriously, if you are actually diverse "on the inside" rather than just in ethnicity, gender, ect. you should be able to write a nice personal statement and interview well. Also, you're statistically much more likely to have connections in the legal world (not that you necessarily do, but if we're debating diversity within the legal system it's broader than just you).

If you think about it, you're actually benefiting from living in a society that privileges masculinity (not just males) and historically white European social values (again we place a premium on these values much more than these people). I am assuming that you're a male of white European decent. This leads me to assume you were raised on these values and it's easy for you to live them. You're bitching about winning the circumstance lottery...

Jesus wasn't a white male...didn't you watch that special on A&E. He wasn't black either..but he wasn't white.

he was middle eastern (semetic)

middle eastern is white

[Oblomov]

.

[dp73816]

Jesus Christ was not a white male. How does anyone educated still believe that?

Exactly. People still dont know this, why? Because they are indoctrinated by the majority that wants to perpetuate this lie

Man...your like the AA horseman of the apocalypse...

[Drake014]

Also, the word "diverse" is quite annoying. It is especially annoying when we straight white males are coyly told that our "experiences" can make us "diverse." "Diversity" is a vague CYA (cover your ass) term that stands for "we hire black/hispanic/native american people at a standard that is different from our other hiring standards." I have absolutely no problem with that either but don't bullshit me and say I can add to my "diversity" through my experiences when you full well know I can't.

Its affirmative action and they don't want to call it that which is understandable but nonetheless frustrating.

Nah, I think a lot of people completely misunderstood my posts. I'm actually a black male. If you read my posts in that light, they mean something a bit different. Diversity, actually doesn't mean black/hispanic/native american at firms. If it did, diversity would be even lower than it is at most firms (their definition of it). Truthfully, diversity usually means asian, women, or gay. They're easier to get. That's my problem with the term.

And no, they don't tend to use an affirmative action/quota approach. That's what a lot of bitter white males think, it helps them feel like the reason they can't get a job is because they've been wronged in some way. Here's what it means. If a firm has a choice between 2 straight A students, they'll pick the non-white non-male. The result is that the firms are all fighting over the same small pool of straight A non-white, non-males. Its a shitty system.

[dp73816]

Look, we all have seen this discussion countless times and heard multiple defenses for and against...you can rationalize it any way you want, but it still remains a problem when an employer even has to think about such a decision - in this day and age, it simply shouldnt be.

We dont live in an ideal world, my friend.

You're right, we don't. But to what degree does AA and "diversity" hiring sharpen the divide rather than close it? It seems to that in a lot of ways, affirmative action creates more racial tension than racial equality/acceptance.

At the end of the day, most people who oppose this "diversity" hiring and affirmative action simply want to have a colorless, equal society where people can better themselves based on hard work and merit. What is so bad about that? I mean, I know a lot of AA-champions want to paint non-AA supporters as racist neo-con Republicans, but the reality is, most people who are opposed to affirmative action are simply looking to follow the dream of Dr. King to its conclusion: acceptance based on merit, not on color of one's skin.

I'm not saying that affirmative action is a bad thing, I'm just saying that there are some real questions that need to be considered. Most importantly, when do we say enough is enough? I feel like our generation really looks past race. Maybe not entirely, and maybe not in all things, but when it comes to hiring, working, and living in the company of other races, our generation does not need affirmative action.[/quote]

agree with this entirely

[Pearalegal]

41% approximates an overwhelming majority to you? That's curious.*




*Biglaw is probably whiter, straighter and YX-er, but it's still not an "overwhelming majority."

Because you seem so sure of yourself here, please define "overwhelming majority."

I would say when you consider the fact that all the other groups combine to make up the 49% of the rest of the pool, then yes...that counts as a solid majority.

Lol wut? 51% constitutes a solid majority? Tell that to Congress.

Uh....unlike Congress, its not Group A vs. Group B. The 49% of the other side is made up of all the different groups.

And actually, it was 41%, not 51%.