How Long Will It Take...
for this thought-provoking article -- "Lawyers Debate Why Blacks Lag at Major Firms," by Adam Liptak, one of our favorite legal affairs writers -- to hit the New York Times "Most E-mailed Articles" list?
(Our prediction: By the close of business tomorrow, November 29, it will be in the top 10.)
Update: It happened even faster than we expected. The article cracked the top 10 by 9:35 AM.
We may blog about it more later. At the Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention, we attended a spirited panel discussion on law firm hiring practices and diversity, featuring Professor Richard Sander (at right). So minority lawyers and the world of Biglaw is a subject that's been on our mind lately.
In the meantime, feel free to opine in the comments.
Lawyers Debate Why Blacks Lag at Major Firms [New York Times]
(9) Comments
Professors Coleman and Gulati argue:
"The harm of the Sander article is that it will contribute to the stereotyping that already undermines the success of black associates in elite corporate law firms."
Not necessarily. If the article leads some law firms to make their hiring practices colorblind, then minority lawyers who get hired at those firms won't be subjected to negative stereotyping.
(This is really just the Stephen Carter / Reflections of an Affirmative Action Baby thesis, applied to a different context.)
Sander relies too heavily upon grades as predictors of law firm performance. All of us know scores of brilliant law students who turn out to be terrible lawyers -- because they lack social skills, common sense, etc.
(These people go on to become law professors.)
Agreed, 4:16 AM. I would guess that law school grades and "rainmaking" skills are inversely related.
What about Asians??? No one seems to love them anymore...
are Coleman and Gulati actually suggesting that Sander should never have written the article?!
I found it a little interesting that one complaint is that minority associates are not given good assignments and not mentored. I was a white first year associate with great grades at a Biglaw firm and got no mentoring and terrible assignments. I'm now gone. Maybe he's on to something.
Lawyers read the Times? And email articles to one another?
Even though it's the obvs take-away, this isn't going to get firms to focus on retention and promotion, is it? Once you're in the door, god help you if you can't talk to (or kiss the asses of) straight old white dudes.
It's just funny how predictable the NYT most-emailed list can be, that's all.
Some staples: Travel articles about visiting impoverished third-world countries. Articles that appeal to overanxious yuppie parents. Snarky Maureen Dowd columns.
And pretty much any article related to Biglaw, no matter how obscure. A comparison of the toilet paper used in the bathrooms of NYC's top ten law firms would shoot to the top of the list in a minute.
What i find disturbing is the deranged assumption in the study that black people don't have the mental skills to hack it in the big law world. Like, when someone like David Lat runs screaming from the golden handcuffs at Wachtell, it's assumed to be because he wasn't intellectually, emotionally, socially fulfilled, and everyone rightly applauds the utter reasonableness of that decision. But the article makes it like black people aren't likewise unfulfilled at BigLaw, no, it's really that "they" don't have the brains to hack it!
I mean, that's a little racist. No shit, a lot of brilliant black people don't want to spend the rest of their life trapped 11.6 hrs a day surrounded by old rich golfing-and-sailing white men and getting mistaken for secretaries and mail guys every other goddamn day, which has seriously happened to people I know. Same way a lot of women don't want to, and a lot of, say, gay asian people might not want to either. The money just is NOT that good. It's no big shocker straight white men are going to feel more comfortable than others spending their lives at a place crawling with straight white men running the show. It kind of pisses me off that now all the no-life-having white guys who are sixth years gunning for partner are going to be secretly congratulating themselves on how awesomely smart they are thanks to this study (even though their mommies and daddies likely hired them the best SAT tutors in all of Westchester, forced them to do their homework from birth, gave them connections that may help them make it rain, etc.).
Another thing that article neglects -- smart black lawyers have a helluva lot of opportunity elsewhere in the corporate world, and they are HIGHLY in demand. Why stay and make $ at a firm when you could work LESS hours and make $$$ elsewhere? Not to mention opportunities in the plaintiffs' bar, public service, etc. Again, did the authors of this study ASK any black people why they leave? Or did they just assume they "can't keep up with white guys"? Christ.