BigLaw diversity hiring Forum

[Anonymous User]

I know an African-American woman at my lower T2 who has a paid 1L summer gig at a V50. I also know that she got a D on at least one of her major legal writing assignments and a C- in Torts. I'm top 15% (white male) and didn't even get an interview. I would say at least one firm is giving some big points for URMs.

How would you know that person's grades? Did she tell you or is this sour grapes?

[Cole S. Law]

I know an African-American woman at my lower T2 who has a paid 1L summer gig at a V50. I also know that she got a D on at least one of her major legal writing assignments and a C- in Torts. I'm top 15% (white male) and didn't even get an interview. I would say at least one firm is giving some big points for URMs.

How would you know that person's grades? Did she tell you or is this sour grapes?

If you're too lazy to read or follow along, I'm not going to hand hold your hand through the whole thing. Again for the reading challenged, I'm happy for my friend. I know you've been programmed to react viscerally and angrily to anyone even discussing anything race related, but you may want to verify the facts before reverting to "auto-indignation" mode.

Also, lame move using the anonymous feature for this post. Weak.

[rando]

There are certain things that certain people will refuse to see. No matter how hard you try or how simply you lay it out, the response will be indignant. There is no sense pulling your hair out trying to do so.

FWIW, I think you could have completely made up the story. Or on the other hand, it is certainly a very plausible account that accords with some things I have seen in legal hiring. Either way, it tells a race-based hiring story. Hypothetical or not, it is accurate. At this point you all should move on and realize this is the way the world works.

And yes, it is possible to have a URM friend, be happy for their achievements, and yet question the hiring process.

[SBimmer]

I know an African-American woman at my lower T2 who has a paid 1L summer gig at a V50. I also know that she got a D on at least one of her major legal writing assignments and a C- in Torts. I'm top 15% (white male) and didn't even get an interview. I would say at least one firm is giving some big points for URMs.

How would you know that person's grades? Did she tell you or is this sour grapes?

If you're too lazy to read or follow along, I'm not going to hand hold your hand through the whole thing. Again for the reading challenged, I'm happy for my friend. I know you've been programmed to react viscerally and angrily to anyone even discussing anything race related, but you may want to verify the facts before reverting to "auto-indignation" mode.

Also, lame move using the anonymous feature for this post. Weak.

Cole: You don't sound like a good friend. And no, I would don't a whiny brat like yourself to hold my hand. If you were a true friend you would have had the "grades" and "SA" gig conversation with your friend and left the issue there. I've worked corporate America long enough to "see" a lot of "white" guys get promoted and hired simply because they're "white" and not the best qualified for the job. Get over yourself.

Maybe you should try and have a face-to-face conversation with an African American regarding your diversity rant and see what you get. Be careful, they might rip you a new asshole.

[Cole S. Law]

I know an African-American woman at my lower T2 who has a paid 1L summer gig at a V50. I also know that she got a D on at least one of her major legal writing assignments and a C- in Torts. I'm top 15% (white male) and didn't even get an interview. I would say at least one firm is giving some big points for URMs.

How would you know that person's grades? Did she tell you or is this sour grapes?

If you're too lazy to read or follow along, I'm not going to hand hold your hand through the whole thing. Again for the reading challenged, I'm happy for my friend. I know you've been programmed to react viscerally and angrily to anyone even discussing anything race related, but you may want to verify the facts before reverting to "auto-indignation" mode.

Also, lame move using the anonymous feature for this post. Weak.

Cole: You don't sound like a good friend. And no, I would don't a whiny brat like yourself to hold my hand. If you were a true friend you would have had the "grades" and "SA" gig conversation with your friend and left the issue there. I've worked corporate America long enough to "see" a lot of "white" guys get promoted and hired simply because they're "white" and not the best qualified for the job. Get over yourself.

Maybe you should try and have a face-to-face conversation with an African American regarding your diversity rant and see what you get. Be careful, they might rip you a new asshole.

Thank you for not hiding behind the anonymous feature this time. Your assertion that a rational discussion with an African American would result in violence tells much about your worldview. I attended a discussion co-sponsored by our African American Law Society about the Conn. firefighters case earlier this year. I openly asserted that denying promotions based soley on race was equally wrong no matter what race of the people involved was. No African American in attendance accused me of racism or threatened to "rip me a new asshole." Some disagreed, but respected my opinion and right to express it. Afterwards, several of us took one of the speakers to lunch and had a great time discussing topics unrelated to race. Exposing oneself to differing view points is how rational, intelligent people learn and grow. It also allows you to meet some interesting people and make lifelong friends. If you were in fact denied a promotion based on race, it was clearly wrong. Perhaps that negative experience has caused you to view my completely neutral discussion of one firm's diversity policy as a "rant."

[ToTransferOrNot]

I love how asserting that things like Diversity Clerkship Programs are wrong somehow makes a person a racist.

Yes, I am clearly a racist for asserting that someone with:

1.) Inferior grades (Median vs. Top 1%)
2.) A far more privileged background (Parents: 1 doctor, 1 lawyer. Undergrad: Harvard. Parents paying for law school, paid for LSAT prep, paid for Undergrad, etc. Compared to, me: Bartender parents, worked 40-50+ hours a week while in high school to put food on the table that I paid for, in the apartment that I rented--not even going to get in to UG/Law School inequities)

Shouldn't receive hiring preference based solely on skin color--and make no mistake, when you're talking about Diversity Clerkship Programs, they are not referring to socio-economic diversity (I tried that line and was essentially laughed out of the room.)

I make no qualms about it--I do not support race-based AA in any way. To the extent that it can serve as a proxy for socio-economic AA, I think that is its only benefit--and even then, it should be limited to undergraduate admissions. This may reflect some bitterness, but it does not reflect racism.

Edit: I point specifically to Diversity Clerkship Programs, but anyone who doesn't acknowledge that "diversity hiring" extends beyond such programs is fooling themselves, plain and simple. Firms are very proud of their diversity initiatives.

[DavidYurman85]

I love how asserting that things like Diversity Clerkship Programs are wrong somehow makes a person a racist.

Yes, I am clearly a racist for asserting that someone with:

1.) Inferior grades (Median vs. Top 1%)
2.) A far more privileged background (Parents: 1 doctor, 1 lawyer. Undergrad: Harvard. Parents paying for law school, paid for LSAT prep, paid for Undergrad, etc. Compared to, me: Bartender parents, worked 40-50+ hours a week while in high school to put food on the table that I paid for, in the apartment that I rented--not even going to get in to UG/Law School inequities)

Shouldn't receive hiring preference based solely on skin color--and make no mistake, when you're talking about Diversity Clerkship Programs, they are not referring to socio-economic diversity (I tried that line and was essentially laughed out of the room.)

I make no qualms about it--I do not support race-based AA in any way. To the extent that it can serve as a proxy for socio-economic AA, I think that is its only benefit--and even then, it should be limited to undergraduate admissions. This may reflect some bitterness, but it does not reflect racism.

Edit: I point specifically to Diversity Clerkship Programs, but anyone who doesn't acknowledge that "diversity hiring" extends beyond such programs is fooling themselves, plain and simple. Firms are very proud of their diversity initiatives.

Just curious (not trying to start an aa war/debate) do you think that society is socially progressive enough to handle color blind hiring and admissions ? I only ask because there have been many cases in both the past and present where a minority candidate has equal, if not more, of the same credentials as a non-minority but is still over looked. It seems as thouh certain aspects of AA can remedy the above.

[ToTransferOrNot]

I don't necessarily think admissions and hiring should be completely color-blind. If two candidates are otherwise equal (i.e., same grades, or same admissions-relevant numbers,) perhaps then it is appropriate to consider diversity.

However, programs such as diversity clerkship programs which are literally closed to non-URMs (I don't even understand how these programs pass constitutional muster, to be honest--AA has been blessed in the educational context as part of an overall evaluation, but these diversity clerkship programs more closely resemble unconstitutional quotas--but I admit that my knowledge of that line of cases is relatively limited, so I might be missing an important part of that analysis,) flat-out "+X to LSAT" points for certain URM status (and, again, people are fooling themselves if they try to argue that +X to LSAT/GPA isn't what is actually going on with the 'URM bumps')--those programs are indefensible.

And I still argue that, at least in the case of college admissions--particularly graduate school admissions, society is, indeed, progressive enough to do away with race-based affirmative action entirely. It is a valuable proxy for socio-economic AA, but colleges are in a position to do true socio-economic AA by evaluating personal statements and so on. Employers are not in the same position.

Also: too late on avoiding an AA debate. There was no way it was going to be avoided in this thread, which is why I didn't even bother to try.

[Anonymous User]

I don't necessarily think admissions and hiring should be completely color-blind. If two candidates are otherwise equal (i.e., same grades, or same admissions-relevant numbers,) perhaps then it is appropriate to consider diversity.

However, programs such as diversity clerkship programs which are literally closed to non-URMs (I don't even understand how these programs pass constitutional muster, to be honest--AA has been blessed in the educational context as part of an overall evaluation, but these diversity clerkship programs more closely resemble unconstitutional quotas--but I admit that my knowledge of that line of cases is relatively limited, so I might be missing an important part of that analysis [. . .]

You talking about law firm "clerkships?" There's no state actor. And from the perspective of a law firm, it makes business sense to have diversity since many clients demand it; the diversity hires would presumably be more meritorious, unless you want to reject capitalism.

If you're talking about programs that involve judicial clerkships, there's no quota unless the state actor specifies that a certain percentage of their hires must come from the diversity clerkship program or otherwise be comprised of minorities.

[ToTransferOrNot]

I'm talking about "Diversity Clerkship Programs"--things that are jointly run by law schools and the state bar association. See, for example, --LinkRemoved--. The application process runs through a public institution (University of Wisconsin Law, in this example,) so there is, in fact, a state actor.

I'm not quite that daft;)

Edit: Yes, the program claims it is for "diverse backgrounds." As I mentioned, I tried the socio-economic diversity line--got me laughed out of the room.

Even in situations where there really is no state actor, though, the programs are still repulsive. Plus, unless my recollection of several of the Civil Rights-esque statutes is completely off, discrimination in hiring based on race is verboten--it's not just discrimination in hiring against URMs that is forbidden. Again, though, my knowledge of the constitional arguments is really, really shaky--I'm happy to stand by my original statement sans the parenthetical constitutional query.

[Anonymous User]

I know an African-American woman at my lower T2 who has a paid 1L summer gig at a V50. I also know that she got a D on at least one of her major legal writing assignments and a C- in Torts. I'm top 15% (white male) and didn't even get an interview. I would say at least one firm is giving some big points for URMs.

...and we should believe you because you say so? First of all, why would this person be dumb enough to tell you or anyone else at the school about her grades? White people make up stories like this all of the time just because they sound plausible. Therefore, I never believe those stories without proof. It's just too easy to make them up.

It reminds me of those stories of whites committing crimes and telling the police that "some black dude did it". They know "someone" will believe them if they say the word "black". And you know someone is going to believe that you don't have a job b/c of an African American Female, when the truth is probably that you have lousy interviewing skills, terrible people skills or some deficiencies in your background...and that assumes you aren't lying about your grades/class rank.

[ToTransferOrNot]

I know an African-American woman at my lower T2 who has a paid 1L summer gig at a V50. I also know that she got a D on at least one of her major legal writing assignments and a C- in Torts. I'm top 15% (white male) and didn't even get an interview. I would say at least one firm is giving some big points for URMs.

...and we should believe you because you say so? First of all, why would this person be dumb enough to tell you or anyone else at the school about her grades? White people make up stories like this all of the time just because they sound plausible. Therefore, I never believe those stories without proof. It's just too easy to make them up.

First off, just to be clear, I'm not the anon quote.

That said, my qualifications are well-known around here. I suppose if you want to accuse me of lying too, that is your perogative. I can't vouch to the accuracy of the quoted statement--I'll admit that someone getting an SA when they got a C- in a 1L class and a D on a LRW assignment seems incredibly far-fetched, URM status or no--and that someone sharing that info also seems far-fetched.

However, it's literally impossible to credibly argue against the link I quoted--it is a well-established program. I'm sure other states/schools have similar programs.

[quickquestionthanks]

What's really sad as I read this is the black girl talked to this guy to get help with what she knows is a weak area,and outed her other bad grade in an attempt to help him feel better about a class where no one got an A, and he's using it to badtalk any professional opportunities that come her way.

If only she knew what you REALLY thought of her all that time you were being all friendly and "helpful" with her work...

In any case, for all you know her daddy works there or she had some connection to that firm before law school. Or developed one. There are quite a few stories of people who were relatively slacking off in LS who got jobs through connections. And maybe you are right and they just saw "black" and selected her...is the majority of that Vault top firm black? Not even close. So her one space, deserved or undeserved, doesn't change the reality of your prospects if you are white. If they hire 50 people and 1 is black, that is hardly cause for you to be eyeing her opportunity with such heat. Because your personality is hard to hide and they could just as well have chosen between you and another white student for that spot and STILL given it to the other white student...and what will the complaint be then?

The one who's personality is revealed here is yours. You have read a dozen things into something I said based on your own narrow preconceived notions. The OP asked if Biglaw makes an effort to encourage diversity. I offered strong evidence that at least one firm does. I did not bad mouth her opportunity in any way. She's a friend of mine and I'm happy for her. Based on the info I have about her grades, her school, and the current state of legal hiring the odds against her getting a a paid, 1L, V50 job are staggering. I know of no other 1L at my school who even got an interview with a V250. Not even the girl who swept all 5 high A's in her section. A logical and probable explanation is an effort on the part of the firm to diversify its workforce. You have proven yourself to be a reactionary incapable of rational thought. Please respond with additional nonsequiturs and unfounded accusations.

--ImageRemoved--

[20121109]

I love how asserting that things like Diversity Clerkship Programs are wrong somehow makes a person a racist.

Yes, I am clearly a racist for asserting that someone with:

1.) Inferior grades (Median vs. Top 1%)
2.) A far more privileged background (Parents: 1 doctor, 1 lawyer. Undergrad: Harvard. Parents paying for law school, paid for LSAT prep, paid for Undergrad, etc. Compared to, me: Bartender parents, worked 40-50+ hours a week while in high school to put food on the table that I paid for, in the apartment that I rented--not even going to get in to UG/Law School inequities)

Shouldn't receive hiring preference based solely on skin color--and make no mistake, when you're talking about Diversity Clerkship Programs, they are not referring to socio-economic diversity (I tried that line and was essentially laughed out of the room.)

I make no qualms about it--I do not support race-based AA in any way. To the extent that it can serve as a proxy for socio-economic AA, I think that is its only benefit--and even then, it should be limited to undergraduate admissions. This may reflect some bitterness, but it does not reflect racism.

This is reposted from another thread. But I think it applies here:

Ok. Let's talk about this disadvantaged thing and the underrepresented thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole concept of URM status is that you are part of a race that is underrepresented in the field of law, relative to their representation in American society as a whole. Though there are a substantial amount of white people who are socioeconomically disadvantaged, this has absolutely zero effect on the representation of whites in the legal community. However, the fact that a majority of blacks/latinos/Native Americans are socioeconomically disadvantaged has a palpable effect on the representation of minorities, not just in the legal field but in professional occupations in general, leading to their under-represented status.

A lot of people argue for socioeconomic consideration in these debates, and although there is some merit, this argument essentially misses the point of URM status. If poor whites were given a boost, it would not remedy any kind of under-representation in the legal community for whites for obvious reasons. However, if poor blacks/latinos/Native Americans, or even rich blacks/latinos/Native Americans are given a boost, it would at least help these races become better represented. URM status is not trying to resolve the disparity of class, its trying to resolve the disparity of race, relative to their representation in society.

And I still argue that, at least in the case of college admissions--particularly graduate school admissions, society is, indeed, progressive enough to do away with race-based affirmative action entirely.

I don't think you're racist, but I would like to hear why you think this is the case.

On a side note, there seems to be a random and sudden increase of URM/AA debates on TLS nowadays

[DavidYurman85]

I don't necessarily think admissions and hiring should be completely color-blind. If two candidates are otherwise equal (i.e., same grades, or same admissions-relevant numbers,) perhaps then it is appropriate to consider diversity.

However, programs such as diversity clerkship programs which are literally closed to non-URMs (I don't even understand how these programs pass constitutional muster, to be honest--AA has been blessed in the educational context as part of an overall evaluation, but these diversity clerkship programs more closely resemble unconstitutional quotas--but I admit that my knowledge of that line of cases is relatively limited, so I might be missing an important part of that analysis,) flat-out "+X to LSAT" points for certain URM status (and, again, people are fooling themselves if they try to argue that +X to LSAT/GPA isn't what is actually going on with the 'URM bumps')--those programs are indefensible.

And I still argue that, at least in the case of college admissions--particularly graduate school admissions, society is, indeed, progressive enough to do away with race-based affirmative action entirely. It is a valuable proxy for socio-economic AA, but colleges are in a position to do true socio-economic AA by evaluating personal statements and so on. Employers are not in the same position.

Also: too late on avoiding an AA debate. There was no way it was going to be avoided in this thread, which is why I didn't even bother to try.

Hmm...I see your point. I support certain aspects of AA - mainy the components that offer it as a (admittedly controversial) remedy to institutional discrimination (education/employment).

I'm assuming from the school's POV that the program is exculsive to minorities as a way to increase participation and hiring of minorities at the clerkship level in the same way that other programs are exclusively for women or veterans or categorically disabled individuals. It seems only obvious to create those types of programs (specifically targeted for minorities) as a way to increase diversity - if that's their objective.

Like you, my knowledge of the legal implications are a bit rusty, so I'm speaking merely from my personal perspective.

glad to see that we can have open discourse w/o hostility...

[vanwinkle]

Are you white? As a white hispanic, its my opinion that you have to be sufficiently brown to not look like an asshole showing up at a "diversity" event. If you pass the pigment test, you're diverse.

This is why I have personally been hesitant to go such events, to be honest.

[20121109]

Are you white? As a white hispanic, its my opinion that you have to be sufficiently brown to not look like an asshole showing up at a "diversity" event. If you pass the pigment test, you're diverse.

This is why I have personally been hesitant to go such events, to be honest.

Vanwinkle, do you really feel that people would be uncomfortable with the fact that you aren't "dark" enough?