First to say...bring on the racist rants!!

first ?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Under sexual orientation they left off straight.

11:52 - Voicing opposition to affirmative action and quotas is not a "racist rant."

"If you're at Kirkland and think that their diversity efforts go too far, the Diversity Committee wants to hear from you."

I highly doubt that expressing that view to the Diversity Committee would be good for one's career. If the diversity census is truly anonymous, then perhaps the best thing for the firm would be for some of us to fill it out saying that we're lesbian quadriplegic Pacific Islanders. Maybe I should do it just to find out if the census is actually anonymous.

"If a client asked that no blacks work on its matters, presumably the firm would fire the client, but when the shoe is on the other foot, K&E partners are all too happy to oblige."

Unless the client is asking that only blacks work on its matters, I don't really see how that is the other foot.

ok 11:52 i'll go first.... when are we going to stop this diversity posturing bullshit? Does anyone really think having Token in on the M&A team is of some benefit (especially since Token went to UPenn...with a 3.0 community studies major and 159 LSAT)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Black_Teenagers

Diversity is a state of mind.

I don't work at Kirkland and I had to fill out something similar for a client. I didn't think it was that big of a deal. I think it's encouraging that large clients care about having women and minorities as part of the team.

ZZZZZZZZZ... HLR Note... ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz... AU < UDC... ZZzzzzzzzzzz

12:19 = racist

12:19 also = sexist

Whenever I hire someone, whether it's a hairdresser, contractor, doctor, lawyer, accountant, maid, nanny, etc, I always ask them to fill out a diversity survey. I wish I could share the warm fuzzy I feel inside when I do so.

It just seems like the firm is pretty disingenuous about all of this. They claim that they don't use it in staffing decisions, but instead say...

"Kirkland uses the census data to assist us in formulating and targeting our Diversity-related programs and as part of our efforts to respond accurately to the multitude of client and third party (e.g., NALP, Minority Law Journal) requests for statistics that we and all of our peer firms receive on a regular basis."

It seems that if clients say, "you know, we don't care about diversity," then the firm will just say they're racists and continue preferential hiring practices. If clients say, "bring it on," then they can pass the buck and say, "I'm sorry that you think that our racial preferences are wrong, but this is what the clients want."

I work at another firm and we're told that clients (the large, "progressive" ones (you can guess and usually be right), not mom & pop or old industrial ones) do request these reports. Not only how many tokens are on the team, but how many hours they've billed. I'm a white male and have very "mixed" feelings on this, but I would be outright insulted if I were a minority.

Does being an AU grad count for diversity purposes?

Kudos to Walmart....they only hire illegal Hispanic workers to staff their cleaning crews and want African American attorneys to fend off the resulting law suits...I read the secret file, its called the Sharpton Deterent Objective and details a 53 step plot to transfatify white middle America into submission while income earning (but not too much, then they might shop elsewhere!) African Americans take advantage of low priced electronics and other products produced by Asian children too far away to know what a contingency fee is. Thus the cycle is complete. New York, DC, SF, Chi, LA...no...Bentonville Arkansas is the true #1 market.

11:58 - Sure it is, not invevitably, but on this Board. That's an empirical point, not a theoretical one.

On the larger topic, clients and client interests determine the nature of lawyer staffing. They always have and always will. Lawyers are agents, not principals. It's funny how this discussion has changed over the years. The issue used to be debated in terms of whether Jews, Blacks, and women should be included on litigation teams in areas of the country not known for their tolerance. There's a famous case involving Roger Baldwin's prosecution for labor picketing in New Jersey in which Baldwin (and the ACLU which was representing him) insisted that Samuel Untermeyer be taken off the case on appeal (he had argued the intermediate appeal), because "a rich jew like Untermeyer would certainly get licked pleading before the Court of Errors in New Jersey." (Untermeyer's chances of success no doubt would be greater today.) A similar thing happened to Bernie Wolfman in the Schempp school prayer case in the Supreme Court, where, according to Louis Pollack, Wolfman decided not to argue the case because "for a Jew to represent Schempp in a challenge to Bible reading and recitation of the Lord's Prayer merely would add unnecessary and probably detrimental baggage to what clearly would be a controversial, and in many quarters, an unpopular course." There are dozens, if not hundreds, of other well-known examples. Attitudes on social and political issues change, of course, but not because law firms force clients to become more enlightened, in either direction. The latter view is more commonly associated with the now popular "lawyer as savior" school of thought grounded in the "religious (i.e, Christian) lawyering" movement. Here, clients are seen as the lawyer's "friends," in the sense that Christians are friends to one another, and as friends they (lawyers) are entitled, if not obligated, to make sure that clients do the right thing. Few attitudes are more unctuous or insulting. Besides, give Wal Mart a chance to do something right. It gets (or takes) so few opportunities.

The Model Rules need to be amended to disallow lawyers and law firms from promising to staff cases or matters based on any criteria other than the business needs of the case or matter.

12:43 - Yes, under Question 7, as a mental impairment

12:12,

You missed the point. "The other foot" in the analogy would be the client asking that no or only a certain number of white lawyers work on an issue (rather than, as you seem to suggest, that only minority lawyers handle a matter). The tipster thinks, rightly so in my opinion, that KE (or any other firm) would gladly adhere to that request. Yet, I am certain that any firm would tell a client to get lost if it requested that no or only a few minority lawyers handle a matter.

Such a double standard can hardly be described as anything other than racist, a somewhat ironic fate for most "diversity" measures.

12:45, in your professional responsibility class you learned that lawyers can't do certain things on behalf of their clients, even if the client asks (such as lying to a court or tribunal, etc.). Many of us think that engaging in racist and sexist hiring/staffing practices falls into the same category.

Therefore, the argument that "the client demands it so we must do it" doesn't really hold water--the client is making an unreasonable demand that should be resisted.

12:45, in your professional responsibility class you learned that lawyers can't do certain things on behalf of their clients, even if the client asks (such as lying to a court or tribunal, etc.). Many of us think that engaging in racist and sexist hiring/staffing practices falls into the same category.

Therefore, the argument that "the client demands it so we must do it" doesn't really hold water--the client is making an unreasonable demand that should be resisted.

This is most likely an attempt to flush out "hidden" minorities, in other words minority designations that the firm missed and therefore couldn't include on its surveys to its clients, Vault, AmLaw, etc. They hope to find a bunch of John Q. Smiths and Jane W. Johnsons who, to outward appearance, are "non-diverse" but upon closer questioning turn out to be 1/20th Native American, gay/lesbian, disabled or some such (but for some reason didn't come up on the firm's radar earlier, whether by failing to note their diversity in the recruiting stage or whatever), so that Kirkland's diversity numbers improve despite no change to their firm's actual makeup.

12:37 -- If client A says, "We don't care either way about diversity" and client B says, "We want information about your diversity numbers as a condition of continuing our relationship," then the firm has the choice of: (1) refusing to collect the numbers and thereby keeping client A but losing client B, or (2) collecting the numbers and keeping both clients A and B. In that situation, how can you say it's disingenuous for the firm to say they're collecting the numbers to please their clients?

I heard that Dickstein Shapiro has its attorneys fill out a similar survey,

12:49

I am not missing the point at all. I disagree with the contention that "we want diversity" means "we want no or only a certain number of white lawyers" (except to the extent hat "a certain number" means simply "we don't want only white lawyers").

My point is that of the three statements below, one is not like the others:

We want only white attorneys
We want no or few white attorneys
We want diversity

The "tipster" seems to equate 2 and 3.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/05/27/mascot_politics

You all seem to be assuming that the clients want diversity in their lawyer teams becuse of affirmative action.

Talk to the in house counsel at these same clients, and they believe, rather, that ethnic and gender diversity in litigation and deal teams make for better representation and better legal services. End of story. It's the same logic the Supreme Court used when it ruled that diversity in legal education is a compelling governmental interest.

Whether you agree or disagree, it's what the clients are demanding - better legal services through diversity.

12:49

I disagree. The client saying "I would like my law firm to reflect the demographics of my organization and the diversity of my customers" is NOT the same as saying "I don't want any black lawyers / I don't want any white lawyers working on my cases".

Please, please stop with your stroking of these firms. Are they paying you? "Oodles of the prestige?" "Cutting edge"?

I don't understand? Is representing Wal-Mart or big oil companies prestigious? Is it "cutting edge" to represent tobacco companies.

You have no idea what you are talking about and filling people's heads with ridiculous propoganda.

I know several people who have gotten jobs at Kirkland who are not impressive. They are merely looking for warm bodies like every other firm.

"Whether you agree or disagree, it's what the clients are demanding - better legal services through diversity."

Care to respond to 1:02's argument? Just because clients demand something doesn't mean that lawyers should (or should be allowed to) give it to them.

"Whether you agree or disagree, it's what the clients are demanding - better legal services through diversity."

Care to respond to 1:02's argument? Just because clients demand something doesn't mean that lawyers should (or should be allowed to) give it to them.

"It's the same logic the Supreme Court used when it ruled that diversity in legal education is a compelling governmental interest."

Are you seriously comparing a large law firm which, about 99% of the time, exists to represent corporate interests, with a law school classroom? The vast majority of lawyers staffed to cases are junior lawyers with minimal contributions to the case outside of sheer labor (doc review, filings, case research, etc.). Law students are, presumably, contributing to each other's legal education (a stretch, I know, but that's the SC's logic).

I think clients' push to diversify law firms is pretty rich given the interests they protect with their day jobs. If they're so interested in the diversity of their legal teams, why don't they retain an excellent boutique firm known to have several African-American or Hispanic lawyers (there are plenty of firms like this)? Oh, what's that? They want the biggest, fanciest firm to represent them? Exactly. They want white shoe, but not white people.

Sidley used to have a picture book featuring all of its minority attorneys. Not sure if someone from HR picked who was in it or what the criteria was (I can't remember being asked and am in a group that might be included, but have generally always passed), but it was sent to all firm attorneys and (I think) clients.

Last time I checked, K&E had only one type of associate: uptight, conservative, WASP interested in billing 3,000 hours and cold, hard cash.

"Talk to the in house counsel at these same clients, and they believe, rather, that ethnic and gender diversity in litigation and deal teams make for better representation and better legal services."

Could you please explain to me what a black female can bring to a case or an M&A matter that a white male would never think of?

I can see how diversity of life experience, schools attended, countries lived in, etc. could allow for better representation of a client, but I don't see how raw racial and gender diversity could possibly help the client.

When they seek job applicants on internet sites, the standard K&E language is:

"Kirkland & Ellis LLP is committed to compliance with the spirit and the letter of all applicable local, state, and federal civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination in employment. All employment decisions, including the recruiting, hiring, placement, training availability, promotion, compensation, evaluation, disciplinary actions, and termination of employment (if necessary) are made without regard to the employee’s race, color, creed, religion, sex, pregnancy or childbirth, personal appearance, family responsibilities, sexual orientation or preference, gender identity, political affiliation, source of income, place of residence, national or ethnic origin, ancestry, age, marital status, military veteran status, unfavorable discharge from military service, physical or mental disability, or on any other basis prohibited by applicable law."

So, they are diverse and have a Diversity Committee to prove it. And they have the numbers to prove it.

Why then did they go to mandatory arbitration so that any employee cannot utilize an administrative or judicial remedy for civil rights and other employment law violations? The only remedy is the American Arbitration Association with the Arbitrator being paid solely by K&E.

"Why then did they go to mandatory arbitration so that any employee cannot utilize an administrative or judicial remedy for civil rights and other employment law violations? "

When you say "cannot utilize," you really should say "chooses not to utilize." I don't see how the emplyment relationship between K&E and its associates is anybody else's business.

What 1:07 pm said. This sort of questionnaire is recommended by consultants as a way for a firm to boost its diversity numbers without any actual change in its staff, because you pick up a few people whose "diversity" wasn't visually apparent. BTW, if any K&E associate wants to fill out the questionnaire dishonestly (come on, didn't you hear a family story once about how you might have an Indian ancestor?), you'll be doing the firm a favor.

2:10 - The choice was removed. Attorneys who may with to consider future employment with Kirkland should know about mandatory arbitration before they initiate any employment efforts. What's to hide if they are truly diverse and are committed to "compliance with the spirit and the letter of all applicable local, state, and federal civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination in employment."

I got "beaten" at my trial ad tryout by a black friend of mine who told me he did no work and looked at the fact pattern that morning. He wound up making the team.

12:14 Merkin -

If you think being a good lawyer has anything to do with grades and LSAT scores, then you haven't met jerks from other schools with higher LSAT scores that I wouldn't put anywhere near the client because they are a) offensive, b) impatient, and c) have sucky personalities. It's law, not rocket science. I've seen valedictorian screw up just as often as bottom of the class. Step down off your elitist (and not so subtle anti-affirmative action) pedestal and operate in reality.

2:18, you are being weird. There are all sorts of reasons to prefer arbitration over a trial, it doesn't necessarily mean a firm is trying to hide anything about its diversity numbers or civil rights matters. Geez.

Clients that demand racial headcounts from their law firms are conspiring to violate civil rights laws. Law firms that acquiesce are violating them outright.

If you are a white K&E associate, this "harmless survey" is directly adverse employment action by the firm. The assertion that it's voluntary is hollow: they know whoever doesn't answer is probably white. There is simply no other rational reason for the collection of this information than to discriminate against whites.

2:30: Come on - arbitration are notoriously favorable to employers. I'm not saying K & E has some vast conspiracy, but it's disingenuous to point out "all sorts of reasons" for preferring arbitrtion clauses.

2:28 -

I don't think people are trying to be "subtl[y] anti-affirmative action." I think that plenty of people are openly against it and don't feel the need to be subtle about it. Also, being against affirmative action is not about elitism, it is about equality, fairness, and giving meaningful protection to civil rights.

You can put me on record as being against affirmative action.

--Anonymous blog commenter

P.S. But seriously I am against affirmative action because everyone should be judged based on their own relative merit and not based on race, gender, etc. (whether basing the judgment on such categories would help or hurt such person).

For better or worse, GE has a policy - which is supposed to be followed throughout all of its various businesses - of choosing outside counsel based on their diversity.

The funny thing about this discussion is that people act as if there are actually minorities at K&E in the first place.

I'm pretty sure when I interviewed in the NY office they said they had one black person in the whole office, ONE, in NEW YORK CITY.

This is probably why they're doing the survey, they figure their has got to be someone else they can count as a minority.

2:59 - I said subtle because they didn't come right out and say it, so I gave them an "out" if you will but it was clear what slant they were suggesting.

I'm not saying anti-affirmative action is elitist, I'm saying that using one's school, undergrad GPA, and LSAT score to assess whether you belong on the team is.

Clients don't want diversity just because of affirmative action. Anyone who has studied negotiations recently knows that the prevailing theory is that people who come from different perspectives tend to come up with the best decisions. The client cares about the bottom line and that's what the studies indicate is the way to get the best outcome.

2:23 - haha, that might speak more to your own abilities, I wouldn't tell too many people that story

K&S sends out a diversity booklet to its clients. I work with several attorneys there and don't know what age, race, or sexual preference they are and don't care so long as the work gets done cost-effectively. When I received the full-color (of course) diversity propaganda booklet, I was thinking "no wonder all of their rates are so high, how much DID IT COST to print up this booklet and send it to me?!?!?!?!"

"Clients don't want diversity just because of affirmative action. Anyone who has studied negotiations recently knows that the prevailing theory is that people who come from different perspectives tend to come up with the best decisions."

Then why do clients that demand diversity look only at race and gender? Why don't they actually demand that lawyers "come from different perspectives" (whatever that means)?

Which of the following two-lawyer teams is more likely to have "diverse perspectives" that could help a client: Team A, which has two black females who grew up in the same neighborhood and went to the same schools at the same time, or Team B, which has two white males from different backgrounds (one grew up in Uganda, the other in Ohio) who are different ages (one went straight through and the other worked before law school) and have different backgrounds (one is an economics major and the other used to do computer programming). Do you think any client diversity policy would prefer Team B over Team A?

3:15, as long as K&E does not discriminate in its hiring practices, what's wrong with not having that many minorities?

Some people have made reference to only large liberal compaies asking for these, and not old industry. I'm currently working as an engineer and starting law school in the fall. Our clients include Weyerhaeuser, Wah-Chang, and Georgia-Pacific, all old industry companies, and all asked for this information.

Fair enough 12:14 - but remember that when at Kirkland, "Token" is likely a graduate from one of the top 10 law schools in the top 10% of his/her class, with law review or journal experience. Taken as a whole, racial minorities at K&E have resumes that far surpass the average; check the website - most minorities are from Harvard, Yale, Michigan, UChicago, Northwestern, Columbia, UVA, etc., and many of them also went to Ivy Leagues as undergrads. Any client would be impressed to have such attorneys on cases and deals next to the Depaul, John Marshall or U of Illinois white guys who also make up a good portion of the firm. If you assume all minorities get into college and law school based on affirmative action and all nonminorites get there based on merit, then there's no rational argument that can be made to convince you that there are qualified minority attorneys anywhere.

Yes 3:34, the disease is spreading.

The new focus on Diversity is just another aspect of America's birth defect. It's on the opposite end of a spectrum, but it's essentially the same thing as Jim Crow laws (i.e., treating people differently based on race).

Hopefully America will one day finally overcome its racialized and gendered thinking and truly be able to "judge not by the color of one's skin but the content of one's character."

The fact is that the Supreme Court has approved race-conscious actions under Title VII only when the purpose is to remedy discrimination -- either by that employer or by "society." It has never faced the question whether race-conscious employment decisions (such as hiring, promotion, or even assigning certain associates to certain cases) based upon a diversity rationale is permissible. However, language in the Johnson v. Santa Clara Transportation Agency case suggests that it would not do so:
"The requirement that the 'manifest imbalance' relate to a 'traditionally segregated job category' provides assurance . . . that race and sex will be taken into account in a manner consistent with Title VII’s purpose of eliminating the effects of employment discrimination."

It is no defense to a Title VII charge that the employer was engaging in discrimination to satisfy the preference of a customer rather than its own taste for discrimination.

3:41 - please don't compare a voluntary survey created by one firm with jim crow, pretty sure no one is going to die over any policy initiatives created by K&E

3:49, I was comparing Diversity (i.e., racial and gender discrimination intended to benefit minorities) to Jim Crow, not the K&E survey.

Fair enough 3:36, but that white guy from John Marshall probably could have gone to Harvard or Yale if the AA guy hadn't taken his spot.

3:26 - if you're being practical rather than academic about this, then we should be able to admit at the very least that two people of different races growing up right next door to one another in America have different perspectives. There are clearly other diversity initiatives that can be undertaken, but I don't know too many Ugandans working at big law firms.

The issue is not necessarily diverse from one another, but diverse from everyone else including the client's team, so there's no right answer to your question.

And two more side points: 1) what big firm is going to put two black females on a team, and 2) if you are so certain that two black females who grew up next door to one another automatically think the same way, I'd question your reasoning.

4:03, you've raised missing the point to an art form. 3:26 is just pointing out that the old canard about diversity bringing different perspectives to the table is just that, a canard, because clients with diversity policies only look at race and gender and not other factors that arguably more reliably show evidence of different perspectives. And your two side points are idiotic in the extreme (not even sure what you mean by the first one).

Thanks, 4:11. You are exactly the type of person I hope got good grades, great LSAT scores, and is using that to his/her advantage to serve clients.

The point is that you're asking for the best method or nothing at all, and my point is at least they're addressing the issue. You underestimate what just looking different brings to the table.

3:57 - are seriously contending that ANY ONE took his spot, the reality is, he had no spot

Sorry, didn't complete the thought . . .

you underestimate what just looking different brings to the table in terms of having different experiences even when it comes to co-existing in America.

4:11 here. Thanks for the kind words, but I have to disagree with you because I think that the diversity initiative is not addressing the issue at all. In a perfect world, everyone would be treated equally. Treating people unequally does nothing to move us closer to that perfect world, despite the benign motivations of the current brand of unequal treatment.

Also, your last sentence is tokenism in its extreme, undiluted form (i.e., "it's nice to have minorities around").

4:23, by your logic, the world would be a better place if we treat everyone the same even though there's a long history of treating people like trash. Tell me a time when doing absolutely nothing has corrected past injustices.

Tokenism is let's put them there because it looks good to have one. Recognizing that people who look different bring different things to the table *because* we treat those people differently in this society is being realistic.

4:33, how do you equate "treating people the same" with "doing absolutely nothing" while somehow simultaneously acknowledging that in the past people weren't treated the same? Huh? If we treated people the same now, wouldn't that be doing something?

Also, what do you mean by "correcting past injustices"? Discriminating in favor of a black female now won't right the wrong of any adverse discrimination her mother or father faced.

On the tokenism point, I still fail to see what a black female can add to a merger simply because she's a black female. Please explain.

Because the point is that injustice was done - right? I assume you're familiar with the concepts of de jure vs. de facto discrimination, in which case fixing one is doing nothing to fix the other. Treating people the same in the eyes of the law doesn't equate to treating them the same in society.

If the goal is diversity of thought, someone who doesn't look like you probably had a different experience from you growing up in this country even if they lived right next door to you, so the theory is that they will bring different ideas to the table. Again, it's a theory and I'm not saying it is perfect, but I do appreciate the efforts. That's my philosophy on issues in general - people complain about how we fix things but they seldom have a better suggestion.

And "her mother or father faced" is the point where we disagree - the issue is alive and well today, it's not just her mom and dad's problem.

If the goal of diversity initaitives is to right past wrongs, perhaps the best policy really is to "do nothing" - other than treating everyone fairly no matter what race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Affirmative action and other similar diversity initiatives encourage and foster racism among the group of individuals treated "less fairly."

Anyone who seriously thinks that all we need to do is go to a true "meritocracy" and then everything will be rosy clearly does not understand the continuing effects of past racism (ever heard of something called structural racism?) and the presence of more subtle racism that persists today.

It really would be nice if affirmative action wasn't needed. But sadly, in many ways, it still is. There are still people out there who will give Joe White the job because he's more similar to them and they are more "comfortable" with him rather than Sally Black even though she has more to offer and can do a better job than Joe White. How do folks get away with this? It's with a little something called the "right fit."

"If the goal is diversity of thought, someone who doesn't look like you probably had a different experience from you growing up in this country even if they lived right next door to you, so the theory is that they will bring different ideas to the table."

I don't think that's necessarily the case. Also, everyone has different experiences, so every person is in a minority of one. Also (again), client diversity initiatives don't look at other measures that could arguably more demonstrate diversity of thought and that are easily determined (i.e., different undergrad majors, different work experiences before law school), so it's hard to say that these initiatives are trying to get at diversity of thought.

That's exactly my point though. Affirmative action programs perpetuate racism (subtle or otherwise). Case in point, the comment above regarding the minority at Harvard law. Whether or not the white candidate "deserved" to get into Harvard in a meritocracy, the white candidate believes that it is at least possible he was denied the position simply because of race.

When that white candidate becomes a lawyer and is choosing who to hire as an associate, given a choice between equally qualified white and minority candidates, who do you think he would choose to hire?

Affirmative action does not work for that reason. I'm not saying everything would be rosy right away in a meritocracy. But, would it be worse than affirmative action programs? At the very least, it wouldn't perpetuate racism...

5:35,

The goal is for people to not discriminate against Sally Black (whether such discrimination be subtle or structural or whatever). How is that goal served by discriminating in favor of Sally Black?

Clients are looking for the firm to do a specific type of work, so they figure that you already assembled a team of different people with different interests already when you gave them IP, tax, corporate, restructuring, etc. attorneys to work with in the first place. They want people who can bring different perspectives and whether you want to admit it or not, people of different races are going to have different opinions on the same topics. Not because of their color, but because of how society views them. It's just a natural outflow of just "being," if that makes sense to you.

If we debate in reality, we should be able to admit that people who have different experiences in this country are going to bring a different way of thinking, no matter what your major was in college or anything else. It may be an uncomfortable idea to some, but it is what it is. We aren't color blind yet. That's not to say that all minorities think the same way, but to say that being a minority gives you a perspective that a non-minority doesn't have. Studies have shown that the bottom line is better in negotiations when the team is diverse, and that's all a business needs to hear.

I love all these white males claiming that decisions should all be based on merit. Of course, the preference of white male partners for white male associates is "merit" based I'm sure. There is no meritocracy, and the real world is far from colorblind.

- a minority lawyer

no religion category -- somewhat surprising.

5:35 settle down there, Phil T.

I am not saying there is no racism, but come on, this is 2008 - the presidential contenders consist of a white man, a woman, and a black man. Our current president is borderline retarded.

Sure the effects of racism exist. The point, however, is that despite those effects, treating people differently based on sex or race (which affirmative action does by definition) is racist and wrong. Isn't it?

All you "ends justify the means" people should go help George Bush torture people to protect America.

Adhering to your principles only when they work to your advantage is cowardly opportunism.

"They want people who can bring different perspectives and whether you want to admit it or not, people of different races are going to have different opinions on the same topics. "

Hey 6:01, just repeating something doesn't make it true. What is the black female perspective on Reg D offerings? How do hispanic gay males structure a 355 spin-off differently than white male tax lawyers?

Stop trying to come up with BS reasons why discrimination on the basis of race and gender is a good thing when it helps minorities and start helping us get closer to the goal of ending all race- and gender-based discrimination everywhere.

6:02, the world may not be colorblind now, but discriminating in favor of minorities is guaranteed to never get us there. Also, I don't see any of the anti-Diversity people in this thread saying that all current hiring of white males is only merit-based, so you've set us up the strawman.

6:02, You might be surprised to learn that many opponents of affirmative action and racial preferences are not white males.

For anyone interested in the topic, here's an interesting debate on both sides of issue. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16337441

- another minority lawyer

8:11,

Thank you for posting that link. I read each of the speaker's highlighted text and noted that two of the three who spoke against affirmative action supported their reasoning with studies showing that affirmative action is not working as intended while those who spoke in favor of affirmative action relied on statements of corportations in amicus briefs (if there were statistics in the amicus briefs they did not appear in this excerpt), metaphors, and the continuing existence of inequality. I only read the highlighted text from the speeches appearing on the npr website and did not listen to the edited broadcast so perhaps the pro-affirmative action speakers did present statistics that were not included in the highlighted text. However, given my experience in listening to similar debates and reading similar articles and blogs I am going to assume that no such statistics were provided.

I do not want to imply that the pro-affirmative action arguments highlighted are not beneficial to this debate - they are. However, if we are truly seeking to end inequality and empirical studies regarding our chosen method are tending to show that it is not working in practice, shouldn't we seek alternative methods (and debate their ethical status) rather than endlessly debating the philosophical merits of a theory that is failing in practice?

6:43, you continue to show your ignorance. There's no "black female" perspective on Reg D, anymore than there's a white male perspective on it. The idea is that different people bring different approaches to the table when there's a negotiation to be had, end of story. We're not stereotyping perspectives based on race, we're acknowledging that you might have something else to contribute based on your different experience. If we can't get past the point that the majority isn't "suffering" from discrimination in this country, then this discussion isn't going to go anywhere.

I've still not seen you suggest one single way to right the past wrongs, and doing nothing does nothing but continue the status quo which is screwed up to begin with. If people think because Obama is a "viable" candidate, we've moved ahead, then you ought to check out South Africa's history post-apartheid. Mandela became president shortly after it was outlawed, which is a great feat in and of itself, but if you think things are all hunky dory there, then you're mistaken. People just don't work that way.

And to the last comment from 2:37, what is your alternative method?

This debate will never cease, primarily because white males are born with, and are constantly fed, a sense of entitlement. The comment regarding the slighted Harvard reject is a prime example of that. Surely he is entitled to a spot at Harvard! When said spot is denied, blame the minority who is no doubt "unqualified", all the while ignoring the many other seats occupied by white males who all "earned" their spot via daddy's connections, or mommy's legacy or that hard earned county club meritocracy. The comments on this topic are shameful, but I didn't expect much better. Now get back to work!

This debate will never cease, primarily because white males are born with, and are constantly fed, a sense of entitlement. The comment regarding the slighted Harvard reject is a prime example of that. Surely he is entitled to a spot at Harvard! When said spot is denied, blame the minority who is no doubt "unqualified", all the while ignoring the many other seats occupied by white males who all "earned" their spot via daddy's connections, or mommy's legacy or that hard earned county club meritocracy. The comments on this topic are shameful, but I didn't expect much better. Now get back to work!

I've skimmed through the comments above and have the following comment: The 9/11 terrorists were on to something. America needs to be destroyed, including the innocent their children, and theirs, etc. That's the only solution. The hope of a fresh start.

How many of you elitist enfranchised assholes with everything to lose are willing to die with me?

"The fire next time."

I've skimmed through the comments above and have the following comment: The 9/11 terrorists were on to something. America needs to be destroyed, including the innocent their children, and theirs, etc. That's the only solution. The hope of a fresh start.

How many of you elitist enfranchised assholes with everything to lose are willing to die with me?

"The fire next time."

Liberals and pro-affirmative action types are vested in focusing on the differences in people and classifying people into groups in order to seek advantage for one group over another. In that sense they are no different than the segregationists and supremacists of the past. When you see only group identities classified by race, sex, etc., and not the individual, it then becomes easy to take comfort in thoughts such as "the majority isn't "suffering" from discrimination in this country" even if individuals within the majority do suffer when advantage is given to someone who happens to be in an affirmative action category for no reason other than that the individual fits into the category.

What are your thoughts on the following?

"Maybe it's ok for the majority to suffer a little bit for the sake of progress? It's not supposed to easy, for that matter, some think it's not supposed to be fair."

The racial injustices perpetuated on some in the minority were not easy and most assuredly were not fair. Cry me a river.

"If a client asked that no blacks work on its matters, presumably the firm would fire the client, but when the shoe is on the other foot, K&E partners are all too happy to oblige."

Um, there is a difference between being exclusive and being inclusive.

No blacks = exclusive.

Requesting a diverse team that includes whites, blacks, asians, latinos, men, women, etc. = inclusive.

Why do people find the idea of inclusiveness so damned offensive?

The reason clients have to specifically request it is because often partners in power (i.e., white males) will work with and give opportunities to people with whom they are comfortable and in whom they recognize a bit of themselves (i.e., other white males). It's not intentional or malicious, but it happens. A lot. Client requests and other diversity initiatives seek to strike a balance in this inequity.

If you are a straight white male, you are held back only by your lack of personality, skills and/or contacts.

If you are not a straight white male, you are held back by all that can hold white males back, plus the fact that the people in power are not totally comfortable around you. If you are woman who has walked into a conference room of all men who are laughing but quiet down when you walk in, or if you are a black male who has been asked by a white co-worker what kind of "gansta rap" you like, this is not news to you.

Straight white males, however, will never understand, because there is nothing immutable about them that serves as an obstacle. Hence you will always hear about "merit" being the basis for opportunity, because it is impossible for them to recognize the advantage they have because the disadvantages of non-straight white men are subtle but powerful.

If you are a white male, ask yourself -- would your life be easier or hard if you were a black male instead? Same skills, same personality. You're not a criminal, but people would think you are. You're not dumb or lazy, but people would assume that you are. You don't like rap music, but people would assume that you were an expert on it. Sound fun?

"If a client asked that no blacks work on its matters, presumably the firm would fire the client, but when the shoe is on the other foot, K&E partners are all too happy to oblige."

Um, there is a difference between being exclusive and being inclusive.

No blacks = exclusive.

Requesting a diverse team that includes whites, blacks, asians, latinos, men, women, etc. = inclusive.

Why do people find the idea of inclusiveness so damned offensive?

The reason clients have to specifically request it is because often partners in power (i.e., white males) will work with and give opportunities to people with whom they are comfortable and in whom they recognize a bit of themselves (i.e., other white males). It's not intentional or malicious, but it happens. A lot. Client requests and other diversity initiatives seek to strike a balance in this inequity.

If you are a straight white male, you are held back only by your lack of personality, skills and/or contacts.

If you are not a straight white male, you are held back by all that can hold white males back, plus the fact that the people in power are not totally comfortable around you. If you are woman who has walked into a conference room of all men who are laughing but quiet down when you walk in, or if you are a black male who has been asked by a white co-worker what kind of "gangsta rap" you like, this is not news to you.

Straight white males, however, will never understand, because there is nothing immutable about them that serves as an obstacle. Hence you will always hear about "merit" being the basis for opportunity, because it is impossible for them to recognize the advantage they have because the disadvantages of non-straight white men are subtle but powerful.

If you are a white male, ask yourself -- would your life be easier or hard if you were a black male instead? Same skills, same personality. You're not a criminal, but people would think you are. You're not dumb or lazy, but people would assume that you are. You don't like rap music, but people would assume that you were an expert on it. Sound fun?

"If you are a white male, ask yourself -- would your life be easier or hard if you were a black male instead?"

As a Biglaw associate, my life would be much easier as a black male because I would be much more confident that I would make partner.

"You're not a criminal, but people would think you are."

And I am not a racist or sexist, but as a white male everyone thinks I am.

"Why do people find the idea of inclusiveness so damned offensive?"

Why do you find the idea of equality of opportunity and not equality of result so damned offensive?

"If you are a white male, ask yourself -- would your life be easier or hard if you were a black male instead?"

As a Biglaw associate, my life would be much easier as a black male because I would be much more confident that I would make partner.

"You're not a criminal, but people would think you are."

And I am not a racist or sexist, but as a white male everyone thinks I am.

"Why do people find the idea of inclusiveness so damned offensive?"

Why do you find the idea of equality of opportunity and not equality of result so damned offensive?

Life ain't perfect and always fair. Sandra Day O'Connor was offered a secretary's job after law school graduation. Now, an intelletually gifted female has the opportunity to start as an attorney after law school graduation.

Diversity is important and should have been in place years ago. Occasionally, a person is recruited solely to make a firm's numbers "look good."

It is not a perfect process but an evolving process.

2:09, the question should be: "What is the goal we are evolving toward?" If the goal is a society without discrimination and with equality of opportunity, then I don't see how Diversity (i.e., discrimination in favor of minorities) has any place in a society with that goal.

12:12, it's not that simple. If you stepped outside of your own skin, you might see the divide that's there. No one's making this up out of thin air. Just like celebrities start championing causes when they are personally affected by them, I would not expect someone to rally behind something that has never affected them. No one wants to be divided by color, but when it becomes an issue that slaps people in the face on a daily basis, that's even worse now because it's more subtle than it used to be, you have no choice but to respond.

The majority is not suffering from affirmative action or by any other means, in any way that anyone else isn't suffering, too. First of all, because the majority of the majority is getting into these schools. Second, it's highly insulting to even suggest that someone's not being admitted to school is because a minority who you believe didn't deserve a spot got in ahead of you. I feel like that's something you might think to yourself but wouldn't say out loud because you really have no idea why you didn't get into the school. If the 10 people in the majority who don't get into a school (yes, 10, because that's how many black people - forget minorities, you're talking about black people here - were in my section) want to say they suffered because these 10 allegedly less qualified minorities got into that school, number one, as lawyers, you know that you have no way of proving that's true unless some letter from the dean says "congrats, because you're black, we're admitting you to our school," and number two, we all know admittance to schools is one the most arbitrary processes there are.

The Supreme Court made it clear that we shouldn't have quotas but even those folks recognize that the status quo isn't working. I don't see you railing against the other categorizations schools make or complaining when a less-qualified member of the majority gets into the school.

Somehow, the belief that having money and access to a good education made people believe that the playing field was leveled, but nothing could be further from the truth. We are not that far removed from the Civil Rights era. Our grandparents still remember not being able to co-exist with people of different races, and you better believe they pass that on to their children and grandchildren.

You want to say that minorities are into dividing but what are you doing by singling out one group of people who get into school and not others? You don't see the minorities complaining about the other numerous categories that discriminate against them and serve as code for "white" -- that's as clear as giving people different mortgage rates based on zip code, which those companies eventually got zapped for.

There is no such thing as equality of opportunity. When you do absolutely nothing to affect the way the people think, the injustice will remain. Trying to convince people that there is this mythical world where treating everyone the same will do anything when you have an ugly past to combat is doing nothing to advance the conversation.

What other ideas do you have?

2:28 is bitter--to borrow a word from the soon to be black president (no doubt "unqualified", right?).

Perhaps 2:28's failure grasp the meaning of diversity--it's not very nuanced at all--is more reflective of his abilities and might be the explanation for the perceived injustices that he's faced (didn't get into your first choice? NEWS FLASH: Nor did many minorities!) at the hands of these threatening minorities.

I think it's impressive that clients are demanding that law firms use ALL of their talented associates and partners.

Lastly, I wonder if Obama is the product of affirmative action? If so, he's an example of why we should keep it in place--with refinements and modifications as necessary, of course. But for affirmative action, HLS, Columbia, and the United States may not have been blessed with his brilliance.

I think that's the point isn't it? To use affirmative action to do what most white males (even the ones that have the best intentions) might not--for whatever reason. This tool is used to give minorities entre (a platform on which to perform if you will) into a world that they may not otherwise be welcome...and it's a beautiful thing when they are able to shine, others don't, but I think we can all agree that in the big law context we all may get the boot if we don't perform (black, white and blue), so what's the big deal?

The naysayers can shout that minorities are unqualified all they want, but given a shot (i.e., Diversity initiatives) they may prove that they too are just as capable and competent (or even more so) as any white man--I think that's what the naysayers are afraid of.

2:28 is bitter--to borrow a word from the soon to be black president (no doubt "unqualified", right?).

Perhaps 2:28's failure grasp the meaning of diversity--it's not very nuanced at all--is more reflective of his abilities and might be the explanation for the perceived injustices that he's faced (didn't get into your first choice? NEWS FLASH: Nor did many minorities!) at the hands of these threatening minorities.

I think it's impressive that clients are demanding that law firms use ALL of their talented associates and partners.

Lastly, I wonder if Obama is the product of affirmative action? If so, he's an example of why we should keep it in place--with refinements and modifications as necessary, of course. But for affirmative action, HLS, Columbia, and the United States may not have been blessed with his brilliance.

I think that's the point isn't it? To use affirmative action to do what most white males (even the ones that have the best intentions) might not--for whatever reason. This tool is used to give minorities entre (a platform on which to perform if you will) into a world that they may not otherwise be welcome...and it's a beautiful thing when they are able to shine, others don't, but I think we can all agree that in the big law context we all may get the boot if we don't perform (black, white and blue), so what's the big deal?

The naysayers can shout that minorities are unqualified all they want, but given a shot (i.e., Diversity initiatives) they may prove that they too are just as capable and competent (or even more so) as any white man--I think that's what the naysayers are afraid of.

Can any proponent of affirmative action on this board cite any empirical study showing that affirmative action has the positive effects (diversity, better african american achievement, etc.) that you claim it does?

OK 3:02/3:03, I'm going to make you my special project. I'm going to respond to every part of your post. Please read and learn something.

"2:28 is bitter--to borrow a word from the soon to be black president (no doubt "unqualified", right?)."

I'm not bitter, I'm disappointed in my fellow Americans. It's fitting that you mention Obama, because I agree with his big race speech in large part. We need to transcend race and all come together, and Diversity (i.e., discrimination in favor of minorities) in law firms is antithetical to that goal.

"Perhaps 2:28's failure grasp the meaning of diversity--it's not very nuanced at all--is more reflective of his abilities and might be the explanation for the perceived injustices that he's faced (didn't get into your first choice? NEWS FLASH: Nor did many minorities!) at the hands of these threatening minorities."

I applied to one law school and got in. I do not feel that Diversity or affirmative action has personally held me back in any way at any point in my life. Also, this discussion is about Diversity at law firms--Diversity at law school school may be different, and nothing I've said in these comments should be applied to that situation.

"I think it's impressive that clients are demanding that law firms use ALL of their talented associates and partners. "

A couple of issues here. First, are you saying that a law firm would never staff a minority lawyer on a case or deal unless a client demands it? That is weird and untrue (why would the firm hire a lawyer and never give him/her work?). Second, if a minority attorney is talented, then they will be staffed on cases and matters. Diversity only helps the untalented.

"Lastly, I wonder if Obama is the product of affirmative action? If so, he's an example of why we should keep it in place--with refinements and modifications as necessary, of course. But for affirmative action, HLS, Columbia, and the United States may not have been blessed with his brilliance."

Obama is brilliant, so he didn't need affirmative action. Affirmative action is only necessary for the unbriliiant. The brilliant succeed on their own.

"I think that's the point isn't it? To use affirmative action to do what most white males (even the ones that have the best intentions) might not--for whatever reason."

It seems that you are getting at the "subtle" or "structural" racism canard--i.e., the idea that white males will instinctively and without their knowledge discriminate against minorities when making hiring decisions. I think this charge is baseless, offensive, and untrue in large part. To the extent that any particular white male would be less likely to hire a minority, then he should not be put in charge of hiring or should otherwise be beaten about the head and torso until he stops being an idiot.

"This tool is used to give minorities entre (a platform on which to perform if you will) into a world that they may not otherwise be welcome..."

Wrong. Diversity is used to give untalented minorities an entre--the talented minorities are already welcomed by the firms that seek to hire talented people.

"and it's a beautiful thing when they are able to shine, others don't, but I think we can all agree that in the big law context we all may get the boot if we don't perform (black, white and blue), so what's the big deal?"

This shows your racism and sexism. You are saying that its not a big deal if a few untalented minorities get jobs because they will get the boot later if they don't perform. You therefore show Diversity to be what it is--a power grab by minorities (in the exact same way that Jim Crow was a power protection measure by the majority). We need to get past all of this.

"The naysayers can shout that minorities are unqualified all they want, but given a shot (i.e., Diversity initiatives) they may prove that they too are just as capable and competent (or even more so) as any white man--I think that's what the naysayers are afraid of."

I am not saying that all minorities are unqualified. I am saying that Diversity is a program with the design and effect of hiring and promoting those minorities that are unqualified (because the qualified minorities don't need a special program to get hired and stay ahead).

I'll continue to check back here and would be happy to respond to any intelligent response to this post. These conversations are what will help us all come together and get past the racialized and gendered thinking that has held this country back for so long.