Davis Polk being sued by former minority associates Forum

[Anonymous User]

Very telling that this thread immediately turned into a fight about what words are polite. Antiracism has never been more prevalent and less capable of effecting real change in the world

Maybe it's not real change to you, but if the senior associates in my group/firm start phasing out offensive phrases, it's a real change to me and many others. I think there's real value in pointing out these behaviors and bringing them to light. Please don't wave away this whole discussion as merely about whether certain words are "polite" or not.

[ughbugchugplug]

Very telling that this thread immediately turned into a fight about what words are polite. Antiracism has never been more prevalent and less capable of effecting real change in the world

Maybe it's not real change to you, but if the senior associates in my group/firm start phasing out offensive phrases, it's a real change to me and many others. I think there's real value in pointing out these behaviors and bringing them to light. Please don't wave away this whole discussion as merely about whether certain words are "polite" or not.

The significant problems of discrimination are not related to whether people are rude or thoughtless every so often. I assure you that happens to privileged whites as well. The emphasis on rude words is because thought leaders on antiracism are bourgeois minorities without actual material problems, which is the exact opposite of the actually legitimately oppressed mass of minorities who face primarily material problems.

[JamezPhoenix]

Very telling that this thread immediately turned into a fight about what words are polite. Antiracism has never been more prevalent and less capable of effecting real change in the world

Maybe it's not real change to you, but if the senior associates in my group/firm start phasing out offensive phrases, it's a real change to me and many others. I think there's real value in pointing out these behaviors and bringing them to light. Please don't wave away this whole discussion as merely about whether certain words are "polite" or not.

The significant problems of discrimination are not related to whether people are rude or thoughtless every so often. I assure you that happens to privileged whites as well. The emphasis on rude words is because thought leaders on antiracism are bourgeois minorities without actual material problems, which is the exact opposite of the actually legitimately oppressed mass of minorities who face primarily material problems.

+1

Also, imagine living such a privileged and decadent life that someone who is shamed into not saying things that were unintentionally slightly offensive to a small contingent is "Real change". Real change for me was not living under the Santa Monica pier and being able to afford a new pair of underwear...But go "make a difference" I guess... My only regret is that when I was homeless and starving, a well off antiracist never came to me and gave me the inspiring news that they would make other well off people be more polite.

[Anonymous User]

Very telling that this thread immediately turned into a fight about what words are polite. Antiracism has never been more prevalent and less capable of effecting real change in the world

Maybe it's not real change to you, but if the senior associates in my group/firm start phasing out offensive phrases, it's a real change to me and many others. I think there's real value in pointing out these behaviors and bringing them to light. Please don't wave away this whole discussion as merely about whether certain words are "polite" or not.

The significant problems of discrimination are not related to whether people are rude or thoughtless every so often. I assure you that happens to privileged whites as well. The emphasis on rude words is because thought leaders on antiracism are bourgeois minorities without actual material problems, which is the exact opposite of the actually legitimately oppressed mass of minorities who face primarily material problems.

+1

Also, imagine living such a privileged and decadent life that someone who is shamed into not saying things that were unintentionally slightly offensive to a small contingent is "Real change". Real change for me was not living under the Santa Monica pier and being able to afford a new pair of underwear...But go "make a difference" I guess... My only regret is that when I was homeless and starving, a well off antiracist never came to me and gave me the inspiring news that they would make other well off people be more polite.

Oh come on now, no one's saying that pointing out these behaviors is fixing racism. And don't think for one second you're the only one who's suffered in your life or who's been dealt a shit hand since birth. You don't know my life, nor do you know the lives of others.

If your point is that we shouldn't lose sight of big picture discriminatory issues, sure, no one's disagreeing with you. But TLS is about the legal profession and its niche issues. I think this is the exact kind of forum where we can and should point out and discuss issues like this, even if they're not nearly as critical as issues like our fucked up criminal justice system or discriminatory voting laws.

Maybe this is too off-topic from OP's intent, so maybe we should reign this conversation in a bit, but just because there are bigger, more important issues to tackle doesn't mean we shouldn't also point out the little ones too.

[ughbugchugplug]

Very telling that this thread immediately turned into a fight about what words are polite. Antiracism has never been more prevalent and less capable of effecting real change in the world

Maybe it's not real change to you, but if the senior associates in my group/firm start phasing out offensive phrases, it's a real change to me and many others. I think there's real value in pointing out these behaviors and bringing them to light. Please don't wave away this whole discussion as merely about whether certain words are "polite" or not.

The significant problems of discrimination are not related to whether people are rude or thoughtless every so often. I assure you that happens to privileged whites as well. The emphasis on rude words is because thought leaders on antiracism are bourgeois minorities without actual material problems, which is the exact opposite of the actually legitimately oppressed mass of minorities who face primarily material problems.

+1

Also, imagine living such a privileged and decadent life that someone who is shamed into not saying things that were unintentionally slightly offensive to a small contingent is "Real change". Real change for me was not living under the Santa Monica pier and being able to afford a new pair of underwear...But go "make a difference" I guess... My only regret is that when I was homeless and starving, a well off antiracist never came to me and gave me the inspiring news that they would make other well off people be more polite.

Oh come on now, no one's saying that pointing out these behaviors is fixing racism. And don't think for one second you're the only one who's suffered in your life or who's been dealt a shit hand since birth. You don't know my life, nor do you know the lives of others.

If your point is that we shouldn't lose sight of big picture discriminatory issues, sure, no one's disagreeing with you. But TLS is about the legal profession and its niche issues. I think this is the exact kind of forum where we can and should point out and discuss issues like this, even if they're not nearly as critical as issues like our fucked up criminal justice system or discriminatory voting laws.

Maybe this is too off-topic from OP's intent, so maybe we should reign this conversation in a bit, but just because there are bigger, more important issues to tackle doesn't mean we shouldn't also point out the little ones too.

Fair point as well, but my only point was that this thread was, for like 3 posts, about allegations of systemic racism, and then 50 posts later has been purely about the minutia of whether a phrase is racist to say or not. The language thing plays an oversized role.

[Dcc617]

So think of how toxic biglaw is for minority people when something as small as talking about offensive phrases gets some of you this riled up (despite the repeated assertions that “language doesn’t matter SO DON’T YOU DARE ASK ME TO CHANGE IT.”)

It looks like it’s playing an outsized role here because we can’t even get past that. How are we supposed to talk about things like how the pipeline in biglaw favors white guys, how minorities are excluded or tokenized, how minority people need to be constantly on guard because everything they do is unfairly scrutinized, etc.? How can we even talk about that if y’all are willing to die on the hill of saying something like “open the kimono.” How can we even go forward. Biglaw is toxic and racist. If you can’t see that then you are willfully blind or bad faith.

[Anonymous User]

It looks like it’s playing an outsized role here because we can’t even get past that. How are we supposed to talk about things like how the pipeline in biglaw favors white guys

Could you elaborate on this? At my T6 minorities have overwhelmingly disproportionately positive BL results, including a host of 1L diversity programs.

[nixy]

It looks like it’s playing an outsized role here because we can’t even get past that. How are we supposed to talk about things like how the pipeline in biglaw favors white guys

Could you elaborate on this? At my T6 minorities have overwhelmingly disproportionately positive BL results, including a host of 1L diversity programs.

Is that reflected in, say, the numbers of non-white guys who make partner in those biglaw firms?

(Agree that there are much bigger issues than language, but language is still important and shapes culture, and is also a lot easier for a bunch of lawyers to bitch about online. But yeah, if BL people freak out at the idea of not saying "open the kimono" I'm not sure they're exactly down with the larger structural changes that are necessary.)

[Anonymous User]

Is that reflected in, say, the numbers of non-white guys who make partner in those biglaw firms?

I was discussing the pipeline to BL, not the pipeline to partner--sorry if I misinterpreted "in." And I am unfamiliar with the demographics of the last year's incoming partner classes, so I cannot speak to those. I would be curious about how the current pipeline favors white men (as someone heading into BL).

[Dcc617]

It looks like it’s playing an outsized role here because we can’t even get past that. How are we supposed to talk about things like how the pipeline in biglaw favors white guys

Could you elaborate on this? At my T6 minorities have overwhelmingly disproportionately positive BL results, including a host of 1L diversity programs.

So I'm going to assume that when you say minority people have "disproportionately positive BL results" that you are NOT saying that minority people have it easier in biglaw than white people.

Biglaw has a huge problem with diversity. Out of the 60ish people in my summer associate class, there was one black person and like under 10 people of color. It was wild.

However, I think that normally biglaw firms are able to hire associates at roughly the same percentage as are in law school (which for a whole bunch of pretty obvious reasons is disproportionately white). The issue in biglaw is that most minority people don't progress and get sort of forced out.

My perspective is that of a white guy who grew up poor. Despite not having exposure to lawyers or rich people prior to going to law school, I was always been able to blend in. Nobody looked at me and thought I didn't deserve to be there. Other white guys in biglaw were comfortable talking to me. My mistakes were seen as growing pains or minor goofs and were never perceived to reflect my competence.

Minority people don't get the same opportunities at law firms, they don't get mentored the same way, they have to deal with often being the only minority person in the room, they have to work with some people who don't think they "deserve" to be there (fedsoc bros who assume they are some sort of "affirmative action" hires), etc.

And really the numbers bear it out. Partner classes are overwhelmingly white. Minority people get funneled out.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for clarifying--yes, I was referring to the process of getting a BL job, not what happens in it (which I have no experience with/in). What you describe sounds really unfortunate/bad. Are recent partner classes diversifying?

Also, regarding the AA issue, that is also unsurprisingly an issue in education as well. But as long as firms/schools continue to have different admissions standards based on particular traits, I am not quite sure what the solution to the constant competence concern is.

[Lacepiece23]

It looks like it’s playing an outsized role here because we can’t even get past that. How are we supposed to talk about things like how the pipeline in biglaw favors white guys

Could you elaborate on this? At my T6 minorities have overwhelmingly disproportionately positive BL results, including a host of 1L diversity programs.

So I'm going to assume that when you say minority people have "disproportionately positive BL results" that you are NOT saying that minority people have it easier in biglaw than white people.

Biglaw has a huge problem with diversity. Out of the 60ish people in my summer associate class, there was one black person and like under 10 people of color. It was wild.

However, I think that normally biglaw firms are able to hire associates at roughly the same percentage as are in law school (which for a whole bunch of pretty obvious reasons is disproportionately white). The issue in biglaw is that most minority people don't progress and get sort of forced out.

My perspective is that of a white guy who grew up poor. Despite not having exposure to lawyers or rich people prior to going to law school, I was always been able to blend in. Nobody looked at me and thought I didn't deserve to be there. Other white guys in biglaw were comfortable talking to me. My mistakes were seen as growing pains or minor goofs and were never perceived to reflect my competence.

Minority people don't get the same opportunities at law firms, they don't get mentored the same way, they have to deal with often being the only minority person in the room, they have to work with some people who don't think they "deserve" to be there (fedsoc bros who assume they are some sort of "affirmative action" hires), etc.

And really the numbers bear it out. Partner classes are overwhelmingly white. Minority people get funneled out.

All of this. I am a black male and did biglaw for five years. I wasn’t forced out. To the contrary, I was seen as a very good associate by time I left.

But during my first year I went through normal growing pains. But my work was cut, I was looked at as someone who wasn’t competent, and I became depressed and thought about leaving.

Then, I took on a pro Bono federal jury trial and won. I thought that would change things immediately. It didn’t, but it started to slowly change my perception in the office.

It took fucking winning a federal jury trial to get good work and opportunities. Then, after I got opportunities with the right people, my career started to take off. Not everyone will be lucky enough to stumble on that opportunity.

[Lacepiece23]

Thanks for clarifying--yes, I was referring to the process of getting a BL job, not what happens in it (which I have no experience with/in). What you describe sounds really unfortunate/bad. Are recent partner classes diversifying?

Also, regarding the AA issue, that is also unsurprisingly an issue in education as well. But as long as firms/schools continue to have different admissions standards based on particular traits, I am not quite sure what the solution to the constant competence concern is.

It’s really not hard. Just assume that everyone regardless of what they look like is competent. Because, you know, you still have to be smart to get into a good school or be at the top of your class at a regional school.

[Dcc617]

Also the idea of law school "success" equating to "competence" in the world is wild.

While I was in law school, a black undergraduate student was beaten by police during a mental health crisis.

I could reflect on how absolutely terrifying that was for my black classmates. Even given all of their success, they still had to fear being killed by police every day if anything went wrong. Think of how much pressure and stress that adds to one's life. Imagine how traumatic that is for the community.

And obviously I was upset and went to the demonstrations and everything, but I did not have to contend with that visceral fear because of my race.

So think of how oppressive law school is. That's an extreme example but there are daily struggles for minority people that white guys just don't have to contend with.

[nixy]

Is that reflected in, say, the numbers of non-white guys who make partner in those biglaw firms?

I was discussing the pipeline to BL, not the pipeline to partner--sorry if I misinterpreted "in." And I am unfamiliar with the demographics of the last year's incoming partner classes, so I cannot speak to those. I would be curious about how the current pipeline favors white men (as someone heading into BL).

Yeah, I think pipeline is best understood more broadly. Access to biglaw jobs doesn't mean much if all the non-white dudes get winnowed out after a few years.

And there is no "constant competence concern." A few points on the LSAT or UGPA doesn't tell you anything about who's going to be competent as a lawyer.

[Anonymous User]

But as long as firms/schools continue to have different admissions standards based on particular traits, I am not quite sure what the solution to the constant competence concern is.

Jesus christ.

Edit: didn't mean to be anon. wldecisions

[Anonymous User]

Is that reflected in, say, the numbers of non-white guys who make partner in those biglaw firms?

I was discussing the pipeline to BL, not the pipeline to partner--sorry if I misinterpreted "in." And I am unfamiliar with the demographics of the last year's incoming partner classes, so I cannot speak to those. I would be curious about how the current pipeline favors white men (as someone heading into BL).

Yeah, I think pipeline is best understood more broadly. Access to biglaw jobs doesn't mean much if all the non-white dudes get winnowed out after a few years.

And there is no "constant competence concern." A few points on the LSAT or UGPA doesn't tell you anything about who's going to be competent as a lawyer.

a hundred percent this. it's one thing getting enough diversity in recruiting, it's another thing keeping them there.

looking at the news seems like dpw is trying to bury this AA associate with discovery fees

[eastcoast_iub]

But as long as firms/schools continue to have different admissions standards based on particular traits, I am not quite sure what the solution to the constant competence concern is.

Jesus christ.

Edit: didn't mean to be anon. wldecisions

This is a legitimate point and a downside of affirmative action, however uncomfortable it may make you. If it is racist to point that out, then the word racist has lost its meaning. For better or worse, LSATs and GPAs are the closest thing to an objective standard for admittance to firms/schools that anyone has come up with yet. however flawed they may be.

[nixy]

But as long as firms/schools continue to have different admissions standards based on particular traits, I am not quite sure what the solution to the constant competence concern is.

Jesus christ.

Edit: didn't mean to be anon. wldecisions

This is a legitimate point and a downside of affirmative action, however uncomfortable it may make you. If it is racist to point that out, then the word racist has lost its meaning. For better or worse, LSATs and GPAs are the closest thing to an objective standard for admittance to firms/schools that anyone has come up with yet. however flawed they may be.

Dude no. The difference is that LSAT/GPA correlate (not very well) with law school grades, which don’t prove competence as a lawyer.

[Anonymous User]

Dude no. The difference is that LSAT/GPA correlate (not very well) with law school grades, which don’t prove competence as a lawyer.

Then firms should not use grades at all. But when a system uses particular objective-ish metrics and holds different candidates to different standards, that naturally will raise questions about who got accepted why.

[Dcc617]

Dude no. The difference is that LSAT/GPA correlate (not very well) with law school grades, which don’t prove competence as a lawyer.

Then firms should not use grades at all. But when a system uses particular objective-ish metrics and holds different candidates to different standards, that naturally will raise questions about who got accepted why.

So do you also scrutinize all white lawyers as possible legacy admits? Or is it just black people and AA?

[Anonymous User]

Dude no. The difference is that LSAT/GPA correlate (not very well) with law school grades, which don’t prove competence as a lawyer.

Then firms should not use grades at all. But when a system uses particular objective-ish metrics and holds different candidates to different standards, that naturally will raise questions about who got accepted why.

So do you also scrutinize all white lawyers as possible legacy admits? Or is it just black people and AA?

Not the person you're replying to, but I'm genuinely curious -- is there actually much of a legacy preference at the law school level? I thought that mainly played out in undergrad admissions.

Closer to the topic at hand, any DPW lurkers care to share their thoughts on the lawsuit? Is DPW worse in this regard than its white shoe peers?

[Anonymous User]

So do you also scrutinize all white lawyers as possible legacy admits? Or is it just black people and AA?

No. I view legacies as possible legacy admits. Not all white lawyers are legacies. And the consideration is not limited to any particular racial minority or even race at all--it would apply to any demographic attribute that is expressly considered in admission/hiring.

[Dcc617]

So do you also scrutinize all white lawyers as possible legacy admits? Or is it just black people and AA?

No. I view legacies as possible legacy admits. Not all white lawyers are legacies. And the consideration is not limited to any particular racial minority or even race at all--it would apply to any demographic attribute that is expressly considered in admission/hiring.

Okay, so you ask all lawyers if their parents went to law school and then are suspicious of their competence if they say yes?

[Dcc617]

So do you also scrutinize all white lawyers as possible legacy admits? Or is it just black people and AA?

No. I view legacies as possible legacy admits. Not all white lawyers are legacies. And the consideration is not limited to any particular racial minority or even race at all--it would apply to any demographic attribute that is expressly considered in admission/hiring.

Okay, so you ask all lawyers if their parents went to law school and then are suspicious of their competence if they say yes?

Also you're assuming that all minorities were beneficiaries of AA without any indication that would be the case?