Screener question about political leanings Forum

[Anonymous User]

I put my Obama internship on my resume. It isn't like they wouldn't be able to tell that the sociology degree who summered with the PD's is a liberal.

ACS/Fed Soc is also an obvious giveaway.

And some firms are known as politically liberal. I assume some are known as conservative too, but I don't really look for those.

[Anonymous User]

I think the reason why you don't see racism or sexism in big law has more to do with these leanings being universally considered disgusting than any fear of being sued.

LOLWUT

(I mean, if you're saying that firms have figured out that it's NAGL to appear racist/sexist so they try to avoid that, sure. If you're actually saying there's no racism/sexism in biglaw because it's universally seen as disgusting, LOLWUT.)

My point was the former. It's bad business and people also don't want to work with those type of people. I don't think that the logic is that we don't want this person because they might get us sued.

[atcushman]

If anything it came from the political leanings of my undergrad (pretty liberal), but I still find it inappropriate.

Unlike religion which is a verboten question, anyone who has take Employment law care to chime in on whether political leanings is protected class?

It's not protected. "Race, religion, sex, national origin, disability, and age" are protected, but democrats are obviously not a protected class. Tangentially, there may be an argument that maybe certain political leanings are irreparably linked to one of those classes, but the argument seems difficult. I'd imagine you can't refuse to hire someone just because they once had an abortion, because this would only impact women. But you can refuse to hire someone who is pro abortion, assuming you would also not hire men who are pro abortion. Similarly, being gay is also not protected unless there is discrimination against gay men, but not against gay women. As long as the interviewer is equally bigoted against both genders, homophobia is fair game. I think that something like a Jew being a Zionist might be protected even though not all Jews are Zionists, because their actual scripture does command them to long for a return to Israel so there is an irreparable link between a protected trait and political leaning. Hope this helps!

This is both stupid and ignorant. They are not protected under federal law, but many states have statutes that protect far, far more classes than federal law does, including political affiliation in DC and NY.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment ... #State_law

Absolutely this should be reported to career services. Anyone advising you not to is a total imbecile.

Yes the people who say it may have been inappropriate but not that big of a deal are imbeciles because you were able to find a wikipedia page that says 1 State, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have laws against discriminating for politics. Also it says NY prohibits discriminating for political activities...i'd be interested to know if expressing an opinion on a current event during an interview qualifies as a political activity.

[PepperJack]

Lawyers tend to have strong political leanings.

This is literally the opposite of my experience. I know lots of law students with strong political leanings, but the vast majority of attorneys I have known throughout my life have been politically moderate or just completely apathetic. Other than plaintiffs attorneys and certain types of PI folk, anyway.

I think most people won't mention their beliefs in the office, but some people do. Law students are more likely to openly state their special snowflake opinions. You're likely to be better off to let the other person express themselves than to say "don't discuss that."

On the political leanings front, NY and DC are not the only markets that exist. Also, even if this were one of those markets, mentioning it and taking adverse action because of it are not the same thing.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I think the reason why you don't see racism or sexism in big law has more to do with these leanings being universally considered disgusting than any fear of being sued.

LOLWUT

(I mean, if you're saying that firms have figured out that it's NAGL to appear racist/sexist so they try to avoid that, sure. If you're actually saying there's no racism/sexism in biglaw because it's universally seen as disgusting, LOLWUT.)

My point was the former. It's bad business and people also don't want to work with those type of people. I don't think that the logic is that we don't want this person because they might get us sued.

Okay, that makes more sense. But I think they also don't want to get sued. That's basically a central tenet for all employers - we don't want someone who's going to get us sued.

[sublime]

..

[ymmv]

Lawyers tend to have strong political leanings.

This is literally the opposite of my experience. I know lots of law students with strong political leanings, but the vast majority of attorneys I have known throughout my life have been politically moderate or just completely apathetic. Other than plaintiffs attorneys and certain types of PI folk, anyway.

I think most people won't mention their beliefs in the office, but some people do. Law students are more likely to openly state their special snowflake opinions. You're likely to be better off to let the other person express themselves than to say "don't discuss that."

On the political leanings front, NY and DC are not the only markets that exist. Also, even if this were one of those markets, mentioning it and taking adverse action because of it are not the same thing.

I'm talking about lawyers I have known in their private lives, not in firms. And most of them were not NY/DC attorneys, so it may not be representative of all that wide a trend anyway.

[Big Dog]

They are not protected under federal law, but many states have statutes that protect far, far more classes than federal law does, including political affiliation in DC and NY.

And don't forget Puerto Rico. Of course, if the OP was being screened for a job in a city that is not NY or DC (or PR).....

[Anonymous User]

I think the reason why you don't see racism or sexism in big law has more to do with these leanings being universally considered disgusting than any fear of being sued.

LOLWUT

(I mean, if you're saying that firms have figured out that it's NAGL to appear racist/sexist so they try to avoid that, sure. If you're actually saying there's no racism/sexism in biglaw because it's universally seen as disgusting, LOLWUT.)

My point was the former. It's bad business and people also don't want to work with those type of people. I don't think that the logic is that we don't want this person because they might get us sued.

Okay, that makes more sense. But I think they also don't want to get sued. That's basically a central tenet for all employers - we don't want someone who's going to get us sued.

No one wants to get sued, but I don't think you're giving the firms enough credit by saying they care because they don't want to get sued. Most partners and associates can get jobs at other firms, and would leave if their current firm was racist or sexist. I think having a racist interview is so bizarre to them that the lawsuit wouldn't cross their minds as much as the we have to get this racist out of here because we don't want to be THAT firm would.

If OP had political leanings on his resume it's 100% fair game to bring that up, and I doubt they were testing OP. They may have been just making conversation, and also seeing how OP can express themselves on a subject requiring good judgment.

I'm saying that even if Title VII were thrown out the window and it was legal not to hire somebody because of their skin color, most firms would still not want to be racist. It's true the reason for this is probably linked to the fact that laws help shape society's opinions over time, but being racist has such a stigma today that I don't really see any firm trying to protect it. They might deny that race was a factor, but they would never say that it's a legitimate factor.

[PepperJack]

Lawyers tend to have strong political leanings.

This is literally the opposite of my experience. I know lots of law students with strong political leanings, but the vast majority of attorneys I have known throughout my life have been politically moderate or just completely apathetic. Other than plaintiffs attorneys and certain types of PI folk, anyway.

I think most people won't mention their beliefs in the office, but some people do. Law students are more likely to openly state their special snowflake opinions. You're likely to be better off to let the other person express themselves than to say "don't discuss that."

On the political leanings front, NY and DC are not the only markets that exist. Also, even if this were one of those markets, mentioning it and taking adverse action because of it are not the same thing.

I'm talking about lawyers I have known in their private lives, not in firms. And most of them were not NY/DC attorneys, so it may not be representative of all that wide a trend anyway.

You don't think that lawyers are more likely than people in other industries to care?

[ymmv]

(I mean, if you're saying that firms have figured out that it's NAGL to appear racist/sexist so they try to avoid that, sure. If you're actually saying there's no racism/sexism in biglaw because it's universally seen as disgusting, LOLWUT.)

My point was the former. It's bad business and people also don't want to work with those type of people. I don't think that the logic is that we don't want this person because they might get us sued.

Okay, that makes more sense. But I think they also don't want to get sued. That's basically a central tenet for all employers - we don't want someone who's going to get us sued.

No one wants to get sued, but I don't think you're giving the firms enough credit by saying they care because they don't want to get sued. Most partners and associates can get jobs at other firms, and would leave if their current firm was racist or sexist. I think having a racist interview is so bizarre to them that the lawsuit wouldn't cross their minds as much as the we have to get this racist out of here because we don't want to be THAT firm would.

Let me guess, you're a white male hetero KJD, right?

[ymmv]

This is literally the opposite of my experience. I know lots of law students with strong political leanings, but the vast majority of attorneys I have known throughout my life have been politically moderate or just completely apathetic. Other than plaintiffs attorneys and certain types of PI folk, anyway.

I think most people won't mention their beliefs in the office, but some people do. Law students are more likely to openly state their special snowflake opinions. You're likely to be better off to let the other person express themselves than to say "don't discuss that."

On the political leanings front, NY and DC are not the only markets that exist. Also, even if this were one of those markets, mentioning it and taking adverse action because of it are not the same thing.

I'm talking about lawyers I have known in their private lives, not in firms. And most of them were not NY/DC attorneys, so it may not be representative of all that wide a trend anyway.

You don't think that lawyers are more likely than people in other industries to care?

I think they're more likely to be deeply ambivalent about political questions on account of spending a career arguing for both sides of virtually identical arguments in a field often defined by factual and moral ambiguities.

That said, law firms as an industry are some of the biggest political financial contributors in the nation, so maybe there's something to your hypothesis. Not that there aren't many pragmatic, non-principled reasons to be a campaign donor.

[Anonymous User]

Male and hetero, not K-JD but I have traits that fall under Title VII. I also love your racial profiling me within this very conversation. Ironic, huh? Out of curiosity, how does my age or who I have sex with factor in?

[ymmv]

Let me guess, you're a white male hetero KJD, right?

Male and hetero, not K-JD but I do have atypical traits that fall under Title VII. I also love your racial profiling me within this very conversation. Ironic, huh? Out of curiosity, how does my age or who I have sex with factor in?

It certainly goes a long way toward explaining your incredibly naive perspective on sexism/racism/homophobia in law firms, yeah.

[desertlaw]

Credited response if resume doesn't scream liberal/conservative,

"First, I love my country and the freedom that it provides. But I am concerned at the direction it has been doing recently, especially with the bipartisan bickering that has taken importance over making this place better. I grew up in a [liberal/conservative] home but my experiences recently have helped me understand the other side's point of view. While I still lean towards [liberal/conservative], I am pretty open to new ideas. Fuck Obama and taxes, though, amirite?"

[A. Nony Mouse]

I agree that the above take on firms' sexism/racism is naive. Seriously, "thou shalt not get sued" is really the first commandment for people involved in hiring. Beyond that, I think this suggests a really narrow vision of racism or sexism. Law is an incredibly traditional, conservative profession, and law firms aren't exactly vanguards of social change/justice.

I'm not saying that individual lawyers can't be great people. Just that as institutions, law firms are hardly sexism/racism free.

[Anonymous User]

I agree that the above take on firms' sexism/racism is naive. Seriously, "thou shalt not get sued" is really the first commandment for people involved in hiring. Beyond that, I think this suggests a really narrow vision of racism or sexism. Law is an incredibly traditional, conservative profession, and law firms aren't exactly vanguards of social change/justice.

I'm not saying that individual lawyers can't be great people. Just that as institutions, law firms are hardly sexism/racism free.

That's true but people involved in recruiting are less likely to be racist or sexist than people practicing at the firm. For instance, these people are more likely to take diversity seriously, because they realize that it impacts their reputation.

[ymmv]

I agree that the above take on firms' sexism/racism is naive. Seriously, "thou shalt not get sued" is really the first commandment for people involved in hiring. Beyond that, I think this suggests a really narrow vision of racism or sexism. Law is an incredibly traditional, conservative profession, and law firms aren't exactly vanguards of social change/justice.

I'm not saying that individual lawyers can't be great people. Just that as institutions, law firms are hardly sexism/racism free.

That's true but people involved in recruiting are less likely to be racist or sexist than people practicing at the firm. For instance, these people are more likely to take diversity seriously, because they realize that it impacts their reputation.

I mean Nony already said almost exactly that.

[Anonymous User]

I agree that the above take on firms' sexism/racism is naive. Seriously, "thou shalt not get sued" is really the first commandment for people involved in hiring. Beyond that, I think this suggests a really narrow vision of racism or sexism. Law is an incredibly traditional, conservative profession, and law firms aren't exactly vanguards of social change/justice.

I'm not saying that individual lawyers can't be great people. Just that as institutions, law firms are hardly sexism/racism free.

That's true but people involved in recruiting are less likely to be racist or sexist than people practicing at the firm. For instance, these people are more likely to take diversity seriously, because they realize that it impacts their reputation.

I mean Nony already said almost exactly that.

So then we agree.

[kevgogators]

For future reference, repeat this:

"You know what they say...Anyone under 30 who isn't a Democrat has no heart, but anyone over 30 who isn't a Republican has no brain." Then laugh, preferably violently.

Guaranteed offer on the spot.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Just because recruiters recognize the importance of reputation doesn't have anything to do with whether there's sexism/racism at a firm, though. It just means they don't want to gain that reputation, for a whole variety of reasons.

[Anonymous User]

Just because recruiters recognize the importance of reputation doesn't have anything to do with whether there's sexism/racism at a firm, though. It just means they don't want to gain that reputation, for a whole variety of reasons.

Right. I don't know about state specific laws, but the federal laws really seem to only protect immutable traits like age, a handicap, skin color, etc. Political leanings don't evoke the same sympathies. I'm sure the rates of racism and sexism at big law firms are relatively equal to the general population with post-graduate degrees (there's a correlation between higher education and lower rates of racism and sexism). However, I don't know if people care significantly if the person interviewing them is a closet racist nearly as much as they care if they will have adverse action taken based on racism.

[Anonymous User]

Yes the people who say it may have been inappropriate but not that big of a deal are imbeciles because you were able to find a wikipedia page that says 1 State, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have laws against discriminating for politics. Also it says NY prohibits discriminating for political activities...i'd be interested to know if expressing an opinion on a current event during an interview qualifies as a political activity.

Even to the extent it is not illegal in the state in which the OP is interviewing, it is highly inappropriate. Speaking with career services is not a legal action, certainly is not even a first step to suing the employer, and also does not require any further actions be taken on the OP's part. Interviewers are routinely instructed, by both firms and the schools that they interview at, that asking questions about political affiliations is strictly verboten, and it is really law schools and firms--not the laws of the states in which they operate, which are typically less strict--that set the rules for what goes and doesn't go at OCI. At the very least, career services should be aware that these questions are being asked. The worst thing that happens is that they say they don't care, and nobody except career services knows the OP ever commented.

You are an imbecile for suggesting otherwise and clearly do not understand how this works when your only response is, "Well, they probably can't be sued." Too much law school has fried your brain.

[sundance95]

You should have cracked a joke about the political question doctrine

[randomstudent]

I had an interviewer ask me directly about my political leanings in a screener. While I think this is an incredibly inappropriate question and I don't really understand the relevance, how does one go about strategically answering this?

Was this is an interview for a government job, BigLaw, or something else?