why do schools care if im LGBT Forum

[McAvoy]

So you like Houston? Most peeps in Austin didn't recommend it.

[thevuch]

I obv didn't send my diversity statement to Baylor

LOL

[Lincoln]

There is probably a minor boost. It's pretty well accepted today that diversity in and of itself is a benefit to an organization, regardless of any prior wrongs needing to be rectified. Several partners have told me that they actively strive for diversity of all kinds when recruiting incoming classes. That being said, LGBT people are probably no longer underrepresented neither at law schools nor in incoming hiring classes at law firms in major markets (or at least not to the same extent as other underrepresented groups). But there is significant work to be done on the acceptance (and prevalence) of trans* and other gender non-conforming people at stuffy law firms, especially, and of LGBT people of color.

As for how they know, most LGBT people in law school are engaged in organizations related to LGBT issues, even if just on a social level. If your resume looks anything like the below, hiring partners will just make an assumption.

J.D., 2016 (expected)
University of Randomstate Law School
- GPA 3.6
- Activities: VP OUTLaw/Lambda Legal.

B.A. English and Political Science (2013)
Ruralliberalarts College
- GPA 3.7
- Thesis: Representations of LGBT people in the Victorian Novel
- Activities: Organizing Committee--2013 Ruralliberalarts college pride

[Attax]

So you like Houston? Most peeps in Austin didn't recommend it.

I don't really like Houston that much, it feels like the butthole of Texas to me. Those from there seem to love it though. I really want DFW, but would pref Houston just b/c it is TX over NYC.

[banjo]

There is probably a minor boost. It's pretty well accepted today that diversity in and of itself is a benefit to an organization, regardless of any prior wrongs needing to be rectified. Several partners have told me that they actively strive for diversity of all kinds when recruiting incoming classes. That being said, LGBT people are probably no longer underrepresented neither at law schools nor in incoming hiring classes at law firms in major markets (or at least not to the same extent as other underrepresented groups). But there is significant work to be done on the acceptance (and prevalence) of trans* and other gender non-conforming people at stuffy law firms, especially, and of LGBT people of color.

As for how they know, most LGBT people in law school are engaged in organizations related to LGBT issues, even if just on a social level. If your resume looks anything like the below, hiring partners will just make an assumption.

J.D., 2016 (expected)
University of Randomstate Law School
- GPA 3.6
- Activities: VP OUTLaw/Lambda Legal.

B.A. English and Political Science (2013)
Ruralliberalarts College
- GPA 3.7
- Thesis: Representations of LGBT people in the Victorian Novel
- Activities: Organizing Committee--2013 Ruralliberalarts college pride

I agree with all of this. I think LGBT status will at least get you a serious look if you massmail. You'll also be well-positioned to apply to 1L diversity SAs.

[Clyde Frog]

I once wore an Ed Hardy shirt, can I put down on my application that I'm gay?

[Attax]

I once wore an Ed Hardy shirt, can I put down on my application that I'm gay?

lolz if you'd think us LGBTs would even dare wear Ed Hardy.

[iamgeorgebush]

FYI LGBT people are indeed underrepresented both among law students and among attorneys in biglaw. i'm sure if you google hard enough you can find some stats to confirm this.

one of the theories i've heard, at least as far as biglaw goes, is that because most current biglaw partners (as well as in-house counsel) are straight, it is often easier for straight associates to form the bonds with those partners that are necessary for advancement than it is for LGBT associates. this not only encourages LGBT associates to leave biglaw earlier than their straight counterparts, but it also discourages LGBT people from entering the profession in the first place.

anyway, all of this is to say that we still need to promote LGBT diversity.

[BigBlackTruck]

.

[Lincoln]

Demographically, ~3.8% of the U.S. is LGBT.

Here's NALP's report on the number of openly LGBT people in firms: http://www.nalp.org/jan14research

In general, the bigger the firm, the bigger representation of openly LGBT. It's hard to say if LGBT people are underrepresented, at least in terms of associates, compared to their demographic % because this only reports people that are openly LGBT. We also don't know the % of law students that are LGBT, though I assumed it to be similar to the national %. Granted, data could be skewed, because there might also be a correlation between firm size and willingness to come out, due to fear of nonacceptance in a smaller workplace. I suppose you could take away that you get the biggest bump at the largest firms.

There certainly seems to be a dropoff in the amount of openly LGBT partners. At the same time, this could be because today's partners are older, and their generation was less accepting of homosexuals compared to today's generation. I'm not sure if I buy that LGBT people can't bond as well with straight partners, unless these partners really have something against homosexuals. There's much more to people than sexual preference, so unless your whole life revolves around being LGBT, there shouldn't really be a difference there.

This is why I said "incoming" classes rather than lawyers as a whole. The most senior partners at my firm (big "traditional" NYC shop) graduated law school in the early 1970s. Anyone who was openly gay at that time was probably excluded from white shoe firms' partnerships, so it's unsurprising that openly LGBT people are under-represented at that level. But our current hiring partner is openly gay, which should illustrate that being gay is certainly no longer a disadvantage in the recruiting process, at least at big firms in major, liberal markets.

Honestly, my impression of the partners' view on things (which is admittedly pretty limited) is that all they care about is the business. If they think you'll be an asset to the firm, they don't care about your sexuality (or race).

[iamgeorgebush]

Demographically, ~3.8% of the U.S. is LGBT.

Here's NALP's report on the number of openly LGBT people in firms: http://www.nalp.org/jan14research

In general, the bigger the firm, the bigger representation of openly LGBT. It's hard to say if LGBT people are underrepresented, at least in terms of associates, compared to their demographic % because this only reports people that are openly LGBT. We also don't know the % of law students that are LGBT, though I assumed it to be similar to the national %. Granted, data could be skewed, because there might also be a correlation between firm size and willingness to come out, due to fear of nonacceptance in a smaller workplace. I suppose you could take away that you get the biggest bump at the largest firms.

There certainly seems to be a dropoff in the amount of openly LGBT partners. At the same time, this could be because today's partners are older, and their generation was less accepting of homosexuals compared to today's generation. I'm not sure if I buy that LGBT people can't bond as well with straight partners, unless these partners really have something against homosexuals. There's much more to people than sexual preference, so unless your whole life revolves around being LGBT, there shouldn't really be a difference there.

no, sir, 3.8% of the population IDENTIFY as LGBT. this figure doesn't include those who are still in the closet, likely a substantial amount. kinsey estimated that 1 in 10 americans are actually LGBT.

at any rate, 2.19% is still way lower than 3.8%---in fact, it's 42.3% lower. that means that there are 42.3% fewer people who identify as LGBT in NALP law firms than there are people who identify as LGBT in the general population. the fact that there are are likely a lot more people out in the general population who are LGBT but don't identify as such makes this all the more troubling.

[BigBlackTruck]

.

[androstan]

should be based on whether you can do the job well.

If only.