Are Straight White Males Not Part of Diversity? Forum

[Drake014]

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.

Haha, you've never interviewed with a biglaw firm, have you? You'd screw yourself. The last thing a firm wants is actual diversity. Whenever a black person applies to a firm, they should list golf, tennis, and skiing and argyle as their interests -the interviewers blood pressure would drop like 20 points. Seriously, the last thing you want to tell them is that you are actually different.

And there's the point. When they say diversity they mean "we want people who aren't white straight males but who act like white straight males"

[TheBigMediocre]

I haven't wasted the time to read through the replies to this thread yet, but I had a question.

What if I'm flamboyantly straight?

[Borhas]

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.

PCism leads to people using some pretty stupid language

for example... "inner city"= black
"diversity"= different races (not beliefs/hobbies/personality)

[KibblesAndVick]

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

It was supposed to be a joke, I'm sorry if it was unclear or wasn't very funny. If you look at the artistic depictions of Jesus that people make, they usually represent him as "one of them". White Europeans paint a white Jesus, South Americans paint a Hispanic Jesus, and so forth. I think that this represents a broader cultural phenomena. People want their savior to look like them because they want him to be "one of them" culturally. America was founded by white males out of a tradition that was dominated by white males. To gain independence, they had to fight a war against other white males. The point being that being a white male makes obtaining positions of social power (being a lawyer, for example) much easier. You're the heir to the throne of our culture.

I am a white male, raised as such, so this is only a guess. But, I imagine the LSAT and the study of law in general become more difficult if you learned Ebonics growing up or were raised in analogous circumstances.

[dp73816]

I haven't wasted the time to read through the replies to this thread yet, but I had a question.

What if I'm flamboyantly straight?

you have blown my mind

[PDaddy]

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.

+1 Must be hard wondering if, every once in awhile, he might actually have to compete on a level playing field.

[TigerBeer]

he was middle eastern (semetic)

middle eastern is white

Only for the purposes of the US census. If Jesus tried going through airport security today he wouldn't be treated like a white guy lmao.

[Drake014]

I haven't wasted the time to read through the replies to this thread yet, but I had a question.

What if I'm flamboyantly straight?

Honestly, they'll probably assume you're gay and put you in the diverse category and in the NALP guidelines as "gay." I shit you not. Ironically, if you're a straight white male, you must be the least diverse straight white male they can find to get the job.

[Joga Bonito]

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.

-agree with this entirely

Common fallacy. Don't use MLK to support an Anti-AA position. It always backfires. You should read the rest of his writings outside of not being treated by the color of your skin but the content of your character. Nothing else he said would support a neo-con, right wing position on hardly anything and King would be pro AA, after all King in his 1967 volume, Where Do We Go From Here? Chaos or Community?, King said

"A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, in order to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis."
-MLK

[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.

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]

This is the problem. Check this link here: --LinkRemoved--

People always want to remember MLK in the amber of "I have a dream" this is a very common mistake. The fact of the matter is we dont live in that world.

[Pearalegal]

I haven't wasted the time to read through the replies to this thread yet, but I had a question.

What if I'm flamboyantly straight?

Honestly, they'll probably assume you're gay and put you in the diverse category and in the NALP guidelines as "gay." I shit you not. Ironically, if you're a straight white male, you must be the least diverse straight white male they can find to get the job.

You missed the joke.

[Borhas]

he was middle eastern (semetic)

middle eastern is white

Only for the purposes of the US census. If Jesus tried going through airport security today he wouldn't be treated like a white guy lmao.

people generally don't give shit to ME folk until they hear their name (unless they are dressed differently)

growing up people confused me for an Italian and sometimes hispanic until I corrected them about being Iranian

that's just my experience though

[Oblomov]

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.

First, where did you get that the rest of the groups combine to make 49%? Where'd the other ten percent go? Are they apparitions? Pretty sure you mean 59%. And no, I wouldn't consider non-white males to have an overwhelming majority even at their 59%. I'd say an overwhelming majority is 70% +, but it is admittedly subjective.

Note, though, that you did admit that non- white males make up a solid majority. In fact, they're 8% above a solid majority.

[Jay-Electronica]

Joga Bonita <3

I just finished reading Chaos and Community

[Kobe_Teeth]

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.

I stand corrected. However, I do think employers sometimes send young people on a wild "diversity" chase because they want to act like a candidate who does not fulfill their terms of "diversity" still has a chance under these same terms when in all reality that's barely true.

And, as I also said earlier, candidates who aren't "diverse" would be better off networking scrupulously than trying to appeal to some "diversity" standard whatever that standard may be.

Also, my experiences with other job markets (education) other than the legal market are informing my opinions here.

[romothesavior]

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.

Actually, that's not even close to what affirmative action does. Its not some minor soft factor that serves as a bump between similar candidates. It is a game changing factor for most people. I would have no problem with that sort of AA, and I'm sure a lot of other people woudl be fine with it too. If two people have similar credentials and merits, but one had to overcome significant odds in order to get to where they are, then okay. But when the color of your skin equals 5-6 LSAT points or equals essentially a 20-30% boost in law school grades for the purpose of OCI, then that's a little extreme. I'm not opposed to AA, just the extreme nature of it as it currently exists.

[TigerBeer]

he was middle eastern (semetic)

middle eastern is white

Only for the purposes of the US census. If Jesus tried going through airport security today he wouldn't be treated like a white guy lmao.

people generally don't give shit to ME folk until they hear their name (unless they are dressed differently)

growing up people confused me for an Italian and sometimes hispanic until I corrected them about being Iranian

that's just my experience though

MEs are really diverse though. A lot of Iranians do look Italian or Hispanic so they wouldn't be hassled, but a dark-skinned Arab would probably run into more trouble. Jesus likely had dark skin as well.

[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.

First, where did you get that the rest of the groups combine to make 49%? Where'd the other ten percent go? Are they apparitions? Pretty sure you mean 59%. And no, I wouldn't consider non-white males to have an overwhelming majority even at their 59%. I'd say an overwhelming majority is 70% +, but it is admittedly subjective.

Note, though, that you did admit that non- white males make up a solid majority. In fact, they're 8% above a solid majority.

Yeah, whoops--I also corrected another poster for numbers, so totally my bad.

My point being that as the rest of the many groups make up the 59%, 41% is the majority, unless white females make up 42%, which would be my only guess for a runner up. Though you're right...defining "solid" and "overwhelming," is entirely subjective.

[Drake014]

How the hell did this conversation go into an AA and "what is jesus debate?"



Quickly: Jesus was middle eastern, by definition. End debate.

Is there affirmative action in law firms? No. Period. There isn't. There's no need to debate whether there should be, there isn't. There isn't even the semblance of affirmative action.

The same thing that hurts most straight white males, also hurts everyone else including "diverse" candidates. The hiring process looks at a VERY VERY few things. They want your grades and they want to know that they'll feel comfortable around you (i.e. they want people as much like them as they can get). This is a bad system that doesn't lead to diversity. I'll also point out that firms have a high turn over, a high alcoholism rate, and new hires are often bad lawyers who end up getting pushed out. In other words, the lack of diversity that exists in the legal field is the result of a bad recruiting system.

[Borhas]

MEs are really diverse though. A lot of Iranians do look Italian or Hispanic so they wouldn't be hassled, but a dark-skinned Arab would probably run into more trouble. Jesus likely had dark skin as well.

Jesus was Iranian

Is there affirmative action in law firms? No. Period. There isn't. There's no need to debate whether there should be, there isn't. There isn't even the semblance of affirmative action.

that's goes against the grain of what I've read on this board... I have no idea what the truth is though

[Joga Bonito]

Joga Bonita <3

I just finished reading Chaos and Community

New Rule:

Nobody can use MLK or any other great social justice reform leader to support right wing policies, while seeming like a good idea at first, upon further inquiry, this method always proves to be inherently self-contradictory.

[Oblomov]

.

[dp73816]

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.

Actually, that's not even close to what affirmative action does. Its not some minor soft factor that serves as a bump between similar candidates. It is a game changing factor for most people. I would have no problem with that sort of AA, and I'm sure a lot of other people woudl be fine with it too. If two people have similar credentials and merits, but one had to overcome significant odds in order to get to where they are, then okay. But when the color of your skin equals 5-6 LSAT points or equals essentially a 20-30% boost in law school grades for the purpose of OCI, then that's a little extreme. I'm not opposed to AA, just the extreme nature of it as it currently exists.

I really dont see how anyone can argue against this...

[TigerBeer]

MEs are really diverse though. A lot of Iranians do look Italian or Hispanic so they wouldn't be hassled, but a dark-skinned Arab would probably run into more trouble. Jesus likely had dark skin as well.

Jesus was Iranian

Jesus was a semite, but I don't think Iranians are considered semites. Iranians are descended from Aryans.

[Jay-Electronica]

And was the middle east back then??? Jesus was Black, sorry white people. Hair Like wool and feet like burnt brass, as described in the bible.