Does this Study Prove that Law Firm Partners are Racist? Forum

[jnwa]

Study is 2 years old but I just came across it.


http://www.vault.com/blog/vaults-law-bl ... re-racist/


Partners given the same memo and told the writer is either a black or white male. On a scale of 5, on average rated the 'white' memo 4.1 and the 'black' memo 3.2.

Comments on the "white memo"- " has potential" "good analytical skills"

Comments on the "black memo" - "average at best" "can't believe he went to NYU"

[mvp99]

probably the result of unconscious racism/bias... here's a similar study but with doctors http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2219763/

[fliptrip]

Cross burning, white hood wearing, kill the n*ggers racists? No, probably not. A fair number of these folks are probably liberal democrats who volunteer and do all kinds of stuff to indicate they don't have a conscious bias towards black folks.

But, absolutely they are subject to the kind of entrenched subconscious biases any person in a racialized society that distributes power based on those racial distinctions is bound to inculcate.

This sort of thing is an argument for why black folks entering these hyper competitive environments might want to seriously consider over-credentialing. We are not fighting on a level playing field.

[Iam3hunna]

We already knew they were.

QED

[Flokkness]

I remember seeing this last year. Not exactly congruent with firms' so-called "diversity initiatives," eh? Showed it to a black prof who worked in biglaw and they were not even remotely surprised.

"First to hire, first to fire" is pretty much what, anecdotally, I've heard about life for black associates.

FWTW.

[sesto elemento]

Cross burning, white hood wearing, kill the n*ggers racists? No, probably not. A fair number of these folks are probably liberal democrats who volunteer and do all kinds of stuff to indicate they don't have a conscious bias towards black folks.

But, absolutely they are subject to the kind of entrenched subconscious biases any person in a racialized society that distributes power based on those racial distinctions is bound to inculcate.

This sort of thing is an argument for why black folks entering these hyper competitive environments might want to seriously consider over-credentialing. We are not fighting on a level playing field.

What do you mean by this? Going into more debt to get more degrees/attend a more "prestigious" school? Regardless, it won't matter. These biases are subconscious and no matter how many degrees/accolades a minority achieves, his/her skills will always be doubted in part because of skin color.

[Effingham]

It highlights how challenging this type of thing is to fight when you consider that more than a third of the partners that evaluated the essays were minorities themselves.

[fliptrip]

Cross burning, white hood wearing, kill the n*ggers racists? No, probably not. A fair number of these folks are probably liberal democrats who volunteer and do all kinds of stuff to indicate they don't have a conscious bias towards black folks.

But, absolutely they are subject to the kind of entrenched subconscious biases any person in a racialized society that distributes power based on those racial distinctions is bound to inculcate.

This sort of thing is an argument for why black folks entering these hyper competitive environments might want to seriously consider over-credentialing. We are not fighting on a level playing field.

What do you mean by this? Going into more debt to get more degrees/attend a more "prestigious" school? Regardless, it won't matter. These biases are subconscious and no matter how many degrees/accolades a minority achieves, his/her skills will always be doubted in part because of skin color.

Perception and doubt are not binary, but hey, you do you.

[cdotson2]

I remember seeing this last year. Not exactly congruent with firms' so-called "diversity initiatives," eh? Showed it to a black prof who worked in biglaw and they were not even remotely surprised.

"First to hire, first to fire" is pretty much what, anecdotally, I've heard about life for black associates.

FWTW.

I think the data backs this up. Some data I collected for my thesis on the amount of AA partners, although of a specific niche of big law, is very telling.

I looked at appellate groups for ten firms, and coded the race for all of the partners, 317 in total. Six of the firms did not have a single AA partner, and no firm had more than one AA partner.

4 out of 317, I was shocked.

[Another1]

Cross burning, white hood wearing, kill the n*ggers racists? No, probably not. A fair number of these folks are probably liberal democrats who volunteer and do all kinds of stuff to indicate they don't have a conscious bias towards black folks.

But, absolutely they are subject to the kind of entrenched subconscious biases any person in a racialized society that distributes power based on those racial distinctions is bound to inculcate.

This sort of thing is an argument for why black folks entering these hyper competitive environments might want to seriously consider over-credentialing. We are not fighting on a level playing field.

What do you mean by this? Going into more debt to get more degrees/attend a more "prestigious" school? Regardless, it won't matter. These biases are subconscious and no matter how many degrees/accolades a minority achieves, his/her skills will always be doubted in part because of skin color.

Black will always be black. Degrees, prestige, or money will never change that.

[fliptrip]

Cross burning, white hood wearing, kill the n*ggers racists? No, probably not. A fair number of these folks are probably liberal democrats who volunteer and do all kinds of stuff to indicate they don't have a conscious bias towards black folks.

But, absolutely they are subject to the kind of entrenched subconscious biases any person in a racialized society that distributes power based on those racial distinctions is bound to inculcate.

This sort of thing is an argument for why black folks entering these hyper competitive environments might want to seriously consider over-credentialing. We are not fighting on a level playing field.

What do you mean by this? Going into more debt to get more degrees/attend a more "prestigious" school? Regardless, it won't matter. These biases are subconscious and no matter how many degrees/accolades a minority achieves, his/her skills will always be doubted in part because of skin color.

Black will always be black. Degrees, prestige, or money will never change that.

This is absolutely true.

[jnwa]

Cross burning, white hood wearing, kill the n*ggers racists? No, probably not. A fair number of these folks are probably liberal democrats who volunteer and do all kinds of stuff to indicate they don't have a conscious bias towards black folks.

But, absolutely they are subject to the kind of entrenched subconscious biases any person in a racialized society that distributes power based on those racial distinctions is bound to inculcate.

This sort of thing is an argument for why black folks entering these hyper competitive environments might want to seriously consider over-credentialing. We are not fighting on a level playing field.

What do you mean by this? Going into more debt to get more degrees/attend a more "prestigious" school? Regardless, it won't matter. These biases are subconscious and no matter how many degrees/accolades a minority achieves, his/her skills will always be doubted in part because of skin color.

Black will always be black. Degrees, prestige, or money will never change that.

i get the overcredentialing point though. If youre fighting an uphill battle against unconscious bias; every little thing that makes you appear more competent helps; even if its an extra line in the education section of your resume.

This is absolutely true.

[fliptrip]

jnwa, as he always does, captured what I was referring to perfectly.

As minorities, we face the pernicious effects of unconscious bias. This scourge is particularly troublesome because often people who are affected by it are those who consciously want to give minorities a chance and really do value things like diversity. In my experience, it's been the subtle shock of someone reading my writing (which despite the many offenses against good writing I commit daily on TLS, is actually a talent I have) and commenting to someone "you know, they don't always know how to write". It's also been just the general lack of surprise when a fellow minority fails or the constant "prove it to me" that I feel like I've had to face trying to make my way in various careers. So, it makes sense to me that since we are already starting out with a deficit in the expectations game, we might want to invest in things that tip that balance in the other direction just to give ourselves the best shot at something closer to an equal playing field. This is not the same thing as saying that a black HLS grad faces no diminished expectations. It's saying that the black HLS grad will likely benefit from a greater assumption of competence than a graduate of probably any other law school except for Yale and honestly, I don't even know about Yale. If that black person also had an HBS MBA, that just does all the more to counter it.

This is where the common TLS advice about Harvard vs. Columbia that centers around the idea that if you want to go into BigLaw, Columbia will get you anywhere Harvard can get you might not be nuanced enough to fully apply to minority applicants. Yes, you may be in the same room with HLS grads as a minority CLS grad, but I believe that those HLS grads are sitting there with an advantage that you don't have. I know a black former biglaw partner who just cashed out and became an equity holding GC at a start-up and his advice was always the same as I discussed law school choices. He said one thing...GO TO HARVARD if you can and he made this point about the expectations game. I managed to totally screw his advice up, but my failures to take good advice are not at issue here. If anyone's interested in a "What's Wrong with Flip" thread, let me know.

All of that being said, I think we are still fighting a losing battle anyway. Trying to climb the ladder at a biglaw firm as minority seems to me to be a row too tough to hoe and not really worth it. If you're heading this route, I think it probably makes the most sense to try and get 3-4 years in and go in house as soon as you possibly can. It seems odd to write, but I think corporate America in general is probably a little more hospitable to minority folks than big law firms. When you get a chance, take a peek at Cravath's or Wachtell's website. It is a sea of non-brown faces. You will be adrift in that sea and frankly, I think you can use whatever advantage you can get.

Now, we get back to my bete noire in these fora, the do you pay for prestige debate. I think for URMs the question is much closer to yes than it is for a non-URM and I think that any URM who looks at choosing a law school, law school itself, or practicing law through the same lens as a non-URM is making a very big mistake.

[T14orTradeSchool]

jnwa, as he always does, captured what I was referring to perfectly.

As minorities, we face the pernicious effects of unconscious bias. This scourge is particularly troublesome because often people who are affected by it are those who consciously want to give minorities a chance and really do value things like diversity. In my experience, it's been the subtle shock of someone reading my writing (which despite the many offenses against good writing I commit daily on TLS, is actually a talent I have) and commenting to someone "you know, they don't always know how to write". It's also been just the general lack of surprise when a fellow minority fails or the constant "prove it to me" that I feel like I've had to face trying to make my way in various careers. So, it makes sense to me that since we are already starting out with a deficit in the expectations game, we might want to invest in things that tip that balance in the other direction just to give ourselves the best shot at something closer to an equal playing field. This is not the same thing as saying that a black HLS grad faces no diminished expectations. It's saying that the black HLS grad will likely benefit from a greater assumption of competence than a graduate of probably any other law school except for Yale and honestly, I don't even know about Yale. If that black person also had an HBS MBA, that just does all the more to counter it.

This is where the common TLS advice about Harvard vs. Columbia that centers around the idea that if you want to go into BigLaw, Columbia will get you anywhere Harvard can get you might not be nuanced enough to fully apply to minority applicants. Yes, you may be in the same room with HLS grads as a minority CLS grad, but I believe that those HLS grads are sitting there with an advantage that you don't have. I know a black former biglaw partner who just cashed out and became an equity holding GC at a start-up and his advice was always the same as I discussed law school choices. He said one thing...GO TO HARVARD if you can and he made this point about the expectations game. I managed to totally screw his advice up, but my failures to take good advice are not at issue here. If anyone's interested in a "What's Wrong with Flip" thread, let me know.

All of that being said, I think we are still fighting a losing battle anyway. Trying to climb the ladder at a biglaw firm as minority seems to me to be a row too tough to hoe and not really worth it. If you're heading this route, I think it probably makes the most sense to try and get 3-4 years in and go in house as soon as you possibly can. It seems odd to write, but I think corporate America in general is probably a little more hospitable to minority folks than big law firms. When you get a chance, take a peek at Cravath's or Wachtell's website. It is a sea of non-brown faces. You will be adrift in that sea and frankly, I think you can use whatever advantage you can get.

Now, we get back to my bete noire in these fora, the do you pay for prestige debate. I think for URMs the question is much closer to yes than it is for a non-URM and I think that any URM who looks at choosing a law school, law school itself, or practicing law through the same lens as a non-URM is making a very big mistake.

SO eloquently stated. I believe your bit about you having a talent for writing. I do! lol

[Flokkness]

I think the data backs this up. Some data I collected for my thesis on the amount of AA partners, although of a specific niche of big law, is very telling.

I looked at appellate groups for ten firms, and coded the race for all of the partners, 317 in total. Six of the firms did not have a single AA partner, and no firm had more than one AA partner.

4 out of 317, I was shocked.

That's remarkable. Did you collect any qualitative data? I'm curious how many black associates self-select out of partner track and/or biglaw entirely, given the (apparently realistic) expectation that the big offices are reserved for whites only.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/20/busin ... .html?_r=0

"Much of the increase in minority partners since 2009, the report found, comes from a rise in the number of Asian and Hispanic partners. African-Americans made up only 1.7 percent of partners in 2015. Minority women fared better at firms of more than 700 lawyers, holding 3.12 percent of partnerships, but only 2.55 percent of such law firm jobs over all."

Might as well post a sign: "Not particularly welcome."

[sesto elemento]

Now, we get back to my bete noire in these fora, the do you pay for prestige debate. I think for URMs the question is much closer to yes than it is for a non-URM and I think that any URM who looks at choosing a law school, law school itself, or practicing law through the same lens as a non-URM is making a very big mistake.

This statement makes me uncomfortable. If I'm understanding correctly, you're arguing that a URM who's been admitted to say a T14 v. T6, consider attending the T6 even if that means accumulating $xx,000 more in debt. In other words, a URM should consider going into more debt than her white peers just so others doubt her a little less. JFC that's depressing.

[fliptrip]

Now, we get back to my bete noire in these fora, the do you pay for prestige debate. I think for URMs the question is much closer to yes than it is for a non-URM and I think that any URM who looks at choosing a law school, law school itself, or practicing law through the same lens as a non-URM is making a very big mistake.

This statement makes me uncomfortable. If I'm understanding correctly, you're arguing that a URM who's been admitted to say a T14 v. T6, consider attending the T6 even if that means accumulating $xx,000 more in debt. In other words, a URM should consider going into more debt than her white peers just so others doubt her a little less. JFC that's depressing.

Everything is relative and I don't think that say, Columbia offers so much more perceptual value for a URM than Cornell that you pay through the nose for it, but I would think it possibly worth it at a smaller figure. Perception is very important and I think that what people often decide is objective performance is really contingent on a lot of things outside of someone's core ability. Yes, it is depressing, but it's the world we live in, so we have to just keep pressing on.

[T14orTradeSchool]

Now, we get back to my bete noire in these fora, the do you pay for prestige debate. I think for URMs the question is much closer to yes than it is for a non-URM and I think that any URM who looks at choosing a law school, law school itself, or practicing law through the same lens as a non-URM is making a very big mistake.

This statement makes me uncomfortable. If I'm understanding correctly, you're arguing that a URM who's been admitted to say a T14 v. T6, consider attending the T6 even if that means accumulating $xx,000 more in debt. In other words, a URM should consider going into more debt than her white peers just so others doubt her a little less. JFC that's depressing.

I think that's kinda what's being said, but not so hard and fast. What i think is being said is that prestige matters more for URMs (and I'd agree with this statement). That if you're looking at the functions of getting a desired job for a black, latino, or "other" student... that name of your school matters more for you than for the typical white student.

I think it's clear that in terms of name, Harvard (Yale, too) is shoulders above he rest. So if it's between Harvard and a school in the middle of the T14 (though those are fine schools), don't necessarily think that Harvard isn't worth the extra money you'd be shelling out. Don't get it twisted, people attach (be it subconsciously or not) a certain level of competence to the name of your school without hearing you even speak or taking a look at your grades, or anything of the sort. This is despite the fact that intelligence/competence isn't significantly different between most schools in the T14.

Bleak and depressing? Yes. But the reality of the situation.

[whitleygilbertwayne]

Although I am a Black studies major, having studied systematic and institutional racism for years, and I work in advocacy for Blacks nearly everyday, it is still, for some reason, surprising and definitely discouraging to read things like this (both the article, and your interpretations).

I always go back and forth about what my impact can be as an African American woman entering this homogenous community and wonder if entering the legal field that perhaps will not genuinely respect me really is the best use of my talents and intellectual capabilities. Being considered second-rate despite my early achievements. Going to a T-14 and doing well means... what? Narrowly being considered for positions yet still under-qualified? Ugh.

[Budfox55]

Agreed with flip. Personal anecdote here. At the investment bank that I used to work at, about 1/4 of my analyst class came from ivies and ivy equivalents (Duke, Stanford, MIT), 1/2 from top state schools, top LACs, and other t30 private schools, 1/4 from other. All of the AAs in my class and all of the older AAs thats I knew (there weren't many) ALL went to ivy/ivy equivalent schools. The only exception was one AA MD that I knew who went to Michigan. With Latinos, there were a few who went to lower ranked schools in the west coast and florida, but they too overwhelmingly came from Ivy or ivy equivalent schools.

I don't think this type of selection is constrained strictly to the financial services industry and from my understanding, investment banking and law firm culture are quite similar. Do I think there may have been some self-selection here? Yes. Do I think URMs have less familial connections that hurt them with networking relative to their white peers and that URMs from higher ranked schools are able to take advantage of institutional networking opportunities? Absolutely. Could I have simply not met a few AAs who went to lower-ranked schools? Sure. Do I think that doubts about the ability of URMs from lower ranked schools to perform at a high level played a large role? Unequivocally yes.

[Phil Brooks]

Cross burning, white hood wearing, kill the n*ggers racists? No, probably not. A fair number of these folks are probably liberal democrats who volunteer and do all kinds of stuff to indicate they don't have a conscious bias towards black folks.

But, absolutely they are subject to the kind of entrenched subconscious biases any person in a racialized society that distributes power based on those racial distinctions is bound to inculcate.

This sort of thing is an argument for why black folks entering these hyper competitive environments might want to seriously consider over-credentialing. We are not fighting on a level playing field.

What do you mean by this? Going into more debt to get more degrees/attend a more "prestigious" school? Regardless, it won't matter. These biases are subconscious and no matter how many degrees/accolades a minority achieves, his/her skills will always be doubted in part because of skin color.

Black will always be black. Degrees, prestige, or money will never change that.

Does this unconscious racial bias infect spouses too? In other words, if a white associate has a black spouse, will the partners notice this and unconsciously discriminate against the associate?

This is all very sad. I hope it changes when our generation becomes the employers/partners.

[fliptrip]

Cross burning, white hood wearing, kill the n*ggers racists? No, probably not. A fair number of these folks are probably liberal democrats who volunteer and do all kinds of stuff to indicate they don't have a conscious bias towards black folks.

But, absolutely they are subject to the kind of entrenched subconscious biases any person in a racialized society that distributes power based on those racial distinctions is bound to inculcate.

This sort of thing is an argument for why black folks entering these hyper competitive environments might want to seriously consider over-credentialing. We are not fighting on a level playing field.

What do you mean by this? Going into more debt to get more degrees/attend a more "prestigious" school? Regardless, it won't matter. These biases are subconscious and no matter how many degrees/accolades a minority achieves, his/her skills will always be doubted in part because of skin color.

Black will always be black. Degrees, prestige, or money will never change that.

Does this unconscious racial bias infect spouses too? In other words, if a white associate has a black spouse, will the partners notice this and unconsciously discriminate against the associate?

This is all very sad. I hope it changes when our generation becomes the employers/partners.

I'd think so. If a minority themselves has this bias, I find it unlikely that a non-minority would rid themselves of it just because they decided to marry a minority. It's safe to say there's a different decision process in choosing a mate than evaluating the work of an employee and besides, in close personal relationships you get so much more exposure that there's overwhelming information to potentially defeat even the most pernicious unconscious bias.

e: I want to believe in your last sentence, but a short visit to the TLS lounge makes it clear to me that isn't going to happen.

[Phil Brooks]

Cross burning, white hood wearing, kill the n*ggers racists? No, probably not. A fair number of these folks are probably liberal democrats who volunteer and do all kinds of stuff to indicate they don't have a conscious bias towards black folks.

But, absolutely they are subject to the kind of entrenched subconscious biases any person in a racialized society that distributes power based on those racial distinctions is bound to inculcate.

This sort of thing is an argument for why black folks entering these hyper competitive environments might want to seriously consider over-credentialing. We are not fighting on a level playing field.

What do you mean by this? Going into more debt to get more degrees/attend a more "prestigious" school? Regardless, it won't matter. These biases are subconscious and no matter how many degrees/accolades a minority achieves, his/her skills will always be doubted in part because of skin color.

Black will always be black. Degrees, prestige, or money will never change that.

Does this unconscious racial bias infect spouses too? In other words, if a white associate has a black spouse, will the partners notice this and unconsciously discriminate against the associate?

This is all very sad. I hope it changes when our generation becomes the employers/partners.

I'd think so. If a minority themselves has this bias, I find it unlikely that a non-minority would rid themselves of it just because they decided to marry a minority. It's safe to say there's a different decision process in choosing a mate than evaluating the work of an employee and besides, in close personal relationships you get so much more exposure that there's overwhelming information to potentially defeat even the most pernicious unconscious bias.

e: I want to believe in your last sentence, but a short visit to the TLS lounge makes it clear to me that isn't going to happen.

Sorry, I was not clear in my question. Here it is, hopefully more clearly: I am white, and I have a black spouse. When the partners at my firm find out that I have a black spouse, will they discriminate against me?

[A. Nony Mouse]

Are you talking about if a partner has a minority spouse or if a white associate has a minority spouse?

[T14orTradeSchool]

Cross burning, white hood wearing, kill the n*ggers racists? No, probably not. A fair number of these folks are probably liberal democrats who volunteer and do all kinds of stuff to indicate they don't have a conscious bias towards black folks.

But, absolutely they are subject to the kind of entrenched subconscious biases any person in a racialized society that distributes power based on those racial distinctions is bound to inculcate.

This sort of thing is an argument for why black folks entering these hyper competitive environments might want to seriously consider over-credentialing. We are not fighting on a level playing field.

What do you mean by this? Going into more debt to get more degrees/attend a more "prestigious" school? Regardless, it won't matter. These biases are subconscious and no matter how many degrees/accolades a minority achieves, his/her skills will always be doubted in part because of skin color.

Black will always be black. Degrees, prestige, or money will never change that.

Does this unconscious racial bias infect spouses too? In other words, if a white associate has a black spouse, will the partners notice this and unconsciously discriminate against the associate?

This is all very sad. I hope it changes when our generation becomes the employers/partners.

If I'm understanding this correctly, you mean will a partner think a white associate is less-capable if they see they have a minority spouse? I (personally) think that's a little bit of a stretch, but who really knows.