African-American Lawyers Searching for Hours
In an environment where hours are scarce, a new report shows that white attorneys are coming out on top. A new survey suggests that African-American attorneys — and minority attorneys in general — are experiencing a greater pinch for hours than their white counterparts. The Minority Law Journal reports:
[M]inority lawyers surveyed said they posted fewer billable hours on average last year than their white counterparts. The average hours billed figure in 2008 was 1,862 for black midlevels, 1,925 for Asian Americans, 1,965 for Hispanics, and 1,976 for whites. And minority lawyers are unlikely to boost their relative output much in 2009. Projected billables for this year were just under 1,825 hours for Asian Americans and African Americans, about 1,840 for Hispanics, and roughly 1,890 for whites.
Hours are low all over, but these numbers indicate the pain is not being shared equally.
Are minority attorneys being “out-hustled” for work, or are these numbers just another manifestation of the old boys’ network?
More numbers from the report after the jump.
It’s not just minority midlevels that are feeling pushed out of work opportunities. Minority partners are being iced out as well. But both problems seem to stem from the historic challenges minorities can face when it comes to developing professional relationships with whites:
As to getting enough of that good work, Veta Richardson, executive director of the Minority Corporate Counsel Association, notes that it’s often tied in to building key mentor and partner relationships — something she says has been a chronic challenge for many minority lawyers. “When work becomes less plentiful, it’s not surprising that minorities face significant challenges,” says Richardson, adding that the lack of good work isn’t just affecting associates. She says she has also been getting more calls for help in the last year from minority partners who say they are slowly being forced out of their firms.
Minority attorneys can read the writing on the walls, and they are understandably terrified about what this is all going to look like come performance-review time:
Minority lawyers are also experiencing higher levels of anxiety about layoffs. That was true in our 2008 survey, but this year a greater percentage of associates in all ethnic groups said that the recession has affected them….As was the case last year, a higher proportion of black midlevels (roughly 13 percent) also reported actively looking for new jobs, compared to just under 8 percent of white and Asian Americans and about 3 percent of Hispanics (by contrast, last year’s survey found that 9 percent of Hispanics were looking for a new job; the reason for the sharp drop is unclear). Likewise, black lawyers were slightly less likely than whites to say they’d still be at their current firm two years from now. What’s more, when midlevels contemplated leaving their firm, African Americans were most likely to cite lack of work as the driving factor. Just under 5 percent predicted that insufficient work would be the main reason for their departures, compared to just under 4 percent for Hispanics, just under 3 percent for whites, and about 2.5 percent of Asians.
It doesn’t sound to me like African-Americans are low on hours because they are not trying as hard as their white colleagues. It sounds to me like minority attorneys are freaked out and doing everything they can, but overall the hours are mysteriously more likely to wind up on the desks of white attorneys. Not by a lot, but by enough to skew the numbers.
Don’t get me wrong. This isn’t 1980. Generally, minorities are experiencing the same employment difficulties that their white counterparts are experiencing. Minorities are just experiencing more of it. While sad, that is hardly shocking. I’m sure that most minorities know exactly what they are up against.
But in terms of solutions, the only thing minorities can do right now is to keep grinding it out. Keep asking for work, keep trying to forge relationships … and keep documenting all of your efforts. The situation might not be fair, the playing field might not be level, but all that will just make victory (victory = improbable survival) taste all the more sweet.
Survey Shows Recession’s Impact on Minority Associates [Minority Law Journal]
More Black than White Associates Report Too Little Work, Anxiety and Job Search [ABA Journal]
Earlier: New Diversity Rankings
(270) Comments
Comments
first!!!!
posting from the future!
This is incredibly racist, but I read 2 in the voice of Bruce "Air Raid Siren" Dickinson.
Where do you get these awful stock photographs?
I blame the whities.
http://www.taxcannabis2010.org/
Do you have any substantive data from a source that does not contain "Minority" in its title? '
Without the "bias" they have discovered they would be out of the business of reporting such problems.
I put these stats into the same category as the birthers' evidence that claim Obama wasn't born in the US.
The proverbial gauntlet hath been thrown Elie, now up to you to produce something legitimate.
Thank you for this article. So many firms spend so much time hand-wringing over why they can't seem to keep African-American talent. Until this phenomena is addressed, the number of African-Americans at firms is bound to remain low.
Spread the wealth!!
I am sure it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that URM's are often accepted to better law schools and then better firms than what their performance numbers indicate.
In those cases, is anyone surprised they are given a few less projects?
First
To call Elie racist
When Jews discovered that their full potential wasn't recognized and used, they formed their own law firms and completely outclassed their WASP competitors. If the black lawyers really are equally competent and really are discriminated against, why is there not a single black law firm in the V100?
Sorry, we have a black president now. The hand-out generation needs to find a new excuse for failing to perform.
Think Barack Obama sat around feeling sorry for himself that white men had been voted into office 43 out of 43 times before him?
no shocker blacks get the short end of the stick, but I am surprised Latinos get more work than Asians
Don't forget to include white gay people in your take on the challenges minorities are facing right now. My experience shows that the same situation you are describing for people of color holds true for gay white women. I know several in BigLaw who have been laid off, or who are on the brink, because of low hours. There's work, but mysteriously, it never lands on their desks....
i'm going to go ahead and blame it on affirmative action
14
Does that mean black gay women are doubly discriminated against?
Why is that, 13?
9- while I generally agree that biases are overblown, From an anecdotal standpoint I have definitely seen clear favoritism. At my law firm the white male associates (even the shitty ones who went to second tier schools with average grades who somehow made it into biglaw) will continually get work over a minority Harvard grad.
If the reverse were true, wouldn't everyone be complaining that minorities are overworked?
Also, African Americans are easily beaten by Hispanics by over 100 hours...So can we really blame racist whitey on this one?
OMFG
I'm going to be the first to say what everyone else is thinking.
Maybe the blacks and mexicans are lazier. As for those Asians, they just suck balls. I'm Asian and I've billed over 2000 so far this year with a 97% realization rate.
No, genius behind 16. It means the discrimination is tripple.
12, FTW.
I am uncannily successful in life, and it is only because I work hard.
18, what school do you think a white Mystal would have gotten into?
They checked the black box on the application. They should be serving coffee at Starbucks.
25,
Concord.
22
Explain your reasoning after reading 14 again closely(and also use triple or treble since tripple isn't a word)
-16
Pretty small disparity. Could even be sample error. What's the methodology?
Maybe the people with hours were too busy to respond to a survey.
waaah, i deserve to get into a good college based on the color of my skin and despite the fact that my parents are both doctors and i come from bethesda
waaaah, i deserve to get into a good law school based on the color of my skin despite the fact that i have lower numbers than my non-minority peers
waaaah, i deserve to get a job at a good law firm based on the color of my skin despite the fact that my classmates worked harder than me during 1L and got better grades
waaaah, i deserve to get preferential treatment at the firm based on the color of my skin regardless of whether i've demonstrated competency
waaaah
Elie, I believe you're confused. African Americans are lazy and that's why they bill fewer hours. It has nothing to do with being "out-hustled" or the "good old boys network."
When you adjust for laziness and affirmative action it turns out URMs actually get more work than whites.
24 wins for subtle reference to the fact that most people fallaciously believe hard work is all you ever need to be successful and that socio-economics do not factor into success.
9:
As much as I would love to agree with you - as that would pretty well allow me to ignore evidence to the contrary - isn't it just as likely that the reverse of your situation is true? That is, white partners view most minority lawyers as "AA cases" and perceive them as less capable than their white counterparts, even though there's no demonstrated lack of ability on the minority lawyers' part?
I've seen it happen with two white lawyers, where a partner does a single project with two different first-year associates, loves the product of one and only feels so-so about the other. Then a few outside, irrelevant circumstances (e.g. partner assumed associate had left for the day when his office was empty even though the associate had just left for a few minutes to grab a late lunch because he worked through the noon hour to get a filing out the door) give the partner the feeling that the so-so associate is "lazy," which just "confirms" what the partner was suspecting all along. Then the so-so associate gets shut out of all work from that partner. In reality, the only difference between the two associates' work was stylistic, and any difference in the quality and thoroughness of the work was negligible.
If that's the case with two white lawyers, wouldn't that problem be much more prevalent when a lot of people feel the way that you obviously do and are looking for reasons to discount the value of minority attorneys?
7, 12, 15, 21, 30, 32 DON'T CARE ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE
I think that anyone who believes that the playing field really is completely level and fair at BigLaw Firms, they are flat out wrong. Discrimination is absolutely still present.
However, that being said, oftentimes minority associates could do more to help themselves out. How many actively seek out mentoring relationships? How many go to practice group outings and get to know people in their practice group in a casual setting? How many are comfortable with engaging in "water cooler" talk with their co-workers? If you're not doing any of the above, then you are clearly shooting yourself in the foot in terms of your ability to succeed.
If you ARE doing all of the above, you're a good associate and you still aren't seeing good work come your way, then there absolutely is a much bigger problem at play
Quinn Remains!
21-you should be soldering circuit boards in the Phillipines.
As much as reading these douchebag comments piss me off, I keep coming back to ATL so that I know what you fuckers are too afraid to say at the office.
Comment removed by moderator.
Why would I want to build a "professional relationship" with someone who comes from a culture that is increasingly obsessed with branding me a racist by any means necessary? It's not worth the risk, e.g., that making a positive comment about the watermelon served as part of a lunch meeting won't get me written up. Race relations have turned into such a PC minefield that I'd rather just stay out of it altogether.
Wow, 40. Just wow
It only October now and I already have 2000 hours in rice field. With 99 percent realization rate too. You people all lazy.
Agreed #14. I was laid off by biglaw for not being "partner track".
- Laid off gay white female
41 = racist and coward in a nation of cowards.
-- Eric Holder
ATTN:
You are not lawyers. "Billing hours" is not the practice of law - it is the practice of making money for partners.
Get out and do something with your pathetic lives.
Yep - you know who I am...
Am I insensitive for laughing at 43?
the partners are just being niggardly with the billable work.
there's no evidence of racism. it also ignores standard deviations. the numbers are absolutely meaningless without standard deviations.
34 and 36 give me hope that some people here actually think things through before they post.
Thank you.
Also 9,
If minority associates are so incapable of doing the work, why weren't they let go in the biglaw mass firings? Mass firings are a perfect time to let go underperformers who, in normal times, would be much harder to fire; just blame it on the economy.
However, these minority associates (midlevels) survived, which tells me that at a threshold level, they are perceived by firm decision-makers to be as capable as their white, male counterparts.
That said, in lean times especially, minority associates MUST be mindful of the fact that politics looms large at biglaw. Make a nuisance out of yourself hunting down work. Refuse to be shut out. (Maybe even look for ways to bring a small matter or two in.)
Above all, don't take this crap lying down and keep grinding!
I get plenty of work. Though I give far more jobs than I receive. Behold! 'Tis the riddle of Samwell!
What was I talking about again? Oh yes:
You wanna do it in my butt, in my butt?
You wanna do it in my butt, in my butt?
You wanna do it in my butt, in my butt?
Let's do it in the butt. Okaaaaaay
48
The illiterates won't get the joke. Kudos for you!
33 is dead on. That is the beauty of JaKe.
I bet the data is correct, but could be explained by some type of selection bias present at various points in the legal practice pipeline that stems from different cultural decisions along the way. There are a million reasons I could speculate about, but I'm not going to waste my time. I think if Lat had written this post, it would have been far more insightful and less blatant about it's racism allegations. Basically, this is why this is a gossip website and not journalism.
I get plenty of work. Though I give far more jobs than I receive. Behold! 'Tis the riddle of Samwell!
What was I talking about again? Oh yes:
You wanna do it in my butt, in my butt?
You wanna do it in my butt, in my butt?
You wanna do it in my butt, in my butt?
Let's do it in the butt. Okaaaaaay
Maybe you've got cause and effect backwards.
I am just going to say this without all the sarcasm in the above posts:
Is it not at least *possible* that there are factors to these statistics other than simple discrimination in work handouts?
I think we have come to a sad time in society when a study that presents itself as empirical does not even acknowledge, much less control for, other variables.
In other words: Sure, these numbers *could* show a pattern of pervasive workplace discrimination. However, we do not know, because it is also possible that for whatever reason, be it affirmative action or cultural work ethic, certain demographics works fewer hours?
This article views all biglaw associates as baby birds clamoring at the mouths of their mother birds (biglaw partners) looking equally for whatever regurgitated food they can get. It ignores completely the possibility that perhaps birds of a certain color may not clamor as willingly for food as the rest . . .
But the point is that we don't know. And the mere fact that this article failed to even MENTION this OBVIOUS flaw in its presentation of the data makes the article facially misleading. It uses data that, in of itself, simple shows the objective reality that black people bill substantially fewer hours. Then the ARTICLE (i.e. not the data) makes a false assertion that this means that biglaw partners discriminate.
Maybe they do discriminate. Maybe not. But this data tells us nothing. And the author is either (i) and idiot, or (ii) too weak to raise an obvious issue, or (iii) both.
50, maybe the firms are too wary of being sued for firing anyone who happens to be black, even if economy- or performance-based? Yolanda Young, is that you?
57
Read 7
-7
I'm confused...
Did they (a) control for hours at different firms? Perhaps minorities are more likely to work at firms where the average hours are less? I don't know, but it could be possible.
Is there any statistical analysis that shows that these results are actually statistically significant? I didn't see any of that either.
Yeah, pretty much OH MY GOD NUMBERS, without any basic analysis to find out if they even are saying anything. This is why they shouldn't let most lawyers do math.
50, see
http://abovethelaw.com/2009/06/title_vii_suit_against_mayer_b.php
Thats fine, Native American lawyers are still looking to be included in your stupid surveys about minority lawyers.
Biglaw won't hire us, you won't report on us. Screw you Biglaw.
Maybe before "searching for hours" they should learn how to write first. That goes for ATL editors as well.
I like working with people who look like me and my kids.
Since the forged ascension of Commissar Obama, I feel AA's usefulness has reached it's end. I believe AA is an antediluvian concept that will only drag minorities down with a negative stigma if continued in place. As for whites that complain about AA I have only one thing to say: blame yourselves for being marginal candidates. I went to college and law school before AA so the competition was much more fierce.
Holy shit, you people are so fucking dense. The odds are that there is no difference in the number of hours being worked but there is a difference in how many hours the individuals bill.
some type of selection bias present at various points
Uh. This. And this is also the main reason any minority should run as far away as possible from any firm with some sort of free market system. Because those systems do not account for selection bias. Seriously.
-In House Lady
Also, the practice group data is interesting:
"Amid the slowdown, fewer of these lawyers were redeployed to busier practice areas. Just 1.2 percent of black midlevels reported changing practice areas because of the recession, compared to 1.7 percent of whites, 1.9 percent of Hispanics, and 2.9 percent of Asians."
Of course that doesn't really say anything about discrimination. Still, another thing that I wonder if they controlled for (and I'm going to bet the answer is no).
Really, failed analytics all over this thing. Wake me up when somebody actually does some real work on this data and then I might care if it show something after some actual analysis.
-60
The article that Elie references is not very enlightening. Besides reporting on anecdotal evidence and feelings of anxiety reported in their survey, the article fails to put the disparity of hours into perspective. How do these statistics compare with the boom years of 2005-2007? Were minority lawyers billing approximately the same hours as white lawyers then? Please don't call me a racist. I think it is a valid inquiry.
62 -
BigLaw won't hire you because you go to Columbia with 159 LSATs and BigLaw doesn't hire *anyone* with 159 LSATs.
Speaking of the LSAT, Elie, how about it? If you really believe in all of this shit you spout here, why not lay your cards on the table?
Affirmative Action unduly causes certain minority students to get jobs and be put into assignments that they aren't otherwise qualified to handle. We're supposed to be shocked that they get less work when the going gets tough?
Only a color blind meritocracy can lead to a post racial world, even taking current racism as a given. Affirmative Action only reinforces negative and hurtful stereotypes.
69 is a racist!
60:
"What, you're receiving over a 100 hours less, on average, than all of the white associates in the firm? Well, how many standard deviations is that from the mean? Have you done a regression analysis? Actually, before you answer that, you're fired."
The complaining will NEVER END. It's no wonder 90% of blacks are Democrats. They celebrate stupidity.
73 = stupidest person in the universe
44 - Hi, I'm also a gay female at a T-10 law school. Was your firm in NYC? Would you mind saying which firm it was, so I and others can be aware of the firm when considering job applications and offers? Thank you.
73, if they gave us the data it'd take about 10 minutes in excel to do all of that.
Of course that is probably never going to happen.
The theory that partners shift work away from minority associates is ridiculous. Every associate knows that partners are completely irrational. There is absolutely no logic or reason to their actions, their moods, their likes, their dislikes, or anything else.
As for the comment that partners approve of work from non-minority associates more than minority associates, come on now. I could give something a partner one day and he or she would love it; the partner in the next office would hate me. And, the next day, the partner who originally loved it will probably hate it.
There is no correlation.
36. Mentoring relationships, even "water-cooler" talk, is a two way street. How many 50-plus year old partners want to develop a mentoring relationship with a young black kid?
In my experience, the entire process of mentoring is self obsessed. You see a person and think "hey, he reminds me of me when I was young." You mentor that person by telling him/her all the things you wish you had known when you were just starting out. That kind of *familiarity* doesn't always exist between an old white partner and a young minority, no matter what law school they both attended.
That said whenever I did find a shared interest or experience with a partner, (politics, gambling, the guy with great Mets tickets) I actively tried to use that as the seed for a positive professional relationship, and for the most part I think I was successful. I felt it was my responsibility to actively make older white partners comfortable with me, instead of assuming that they would be because they should.
Granted, I was younger, less jaded, and more desperate then than I am now.
But the point is simply that developing such a relationship is a really big hurdle for minorities and women in a different way than it is for young white men.
Anyway, JaKe FTW. Excuse me I have to go ban 40 now.
--Elie
79/Elie
Why don't you respond to the statistic questions or the source of the data?
-Just wondering
"I went to college and law school before AA so the competition was much more fierce."
PE, care to explain that? If a group of individuals is given preferential treatment (e.g., the equivalent of 12 points on the LSAT), the number of candidates competing for a limited number of admission spots would increase, thereby increasing the competition. AA makes competition more fierce among those not benefiting from the policy, not less fierce.
Mrs. Lat - best meme in since Frat Stud.
This is really racist. But I read 79 in the voice of a fat black guy eating a hamburger at Wendys.
Okaaaaaaay!
76- I don't care who you are or where you are; if you want to work in biglaw, apply everywhere and accept anything that comes your way. Beggers != choosers.
Biglaw does not discriminate against minority associates; white associates are just better (and more frequent) liars...
Back in the old days, all the partners were white male WASPs, who had very little "familiarity" or anything in common with yarmulke-wearing, Yom Kippur-observing Jews, which explains why there are basically no Jewish partners at law firms today.
Mystal + Lat + heaping amounts of anal spelunking begets Samwell.
ps: JaKe, you are an idiot.
76 - Wish I could but I'm restricted from discussing. Just think Magic Circle nyc.
This comment is addressed to post no. 81.
Let me put this is in very simple terms so that you can extract that thorn and understand. If an AA candidate is going to get 12 free points that puts him/her on par with you, it should motivate you to do better and be above-par over the AA candidate. If you cannot do this, then you have failed yourself by not factoring the AA advantage. Since you will not understand this simple example I will use a sports illustration. If I went golfing with Tiger Woods and he gave me an extra 15 strokes on an 18 hole course, Tiger Woods would still win. If you can't be Tiger, then you don't belong on the Tour. That is all.
Am I the only one that finds Mrs. Lat hysterical? Until then, I wait for the post-racial America. I think we are on our way already and need to dump a lot of our pre-conceived notions. This means you too Elie. You cry racism and homo-phobia and everything else far too often my friend. To assume the worst about white heterosexual males - well, that is just racist and sexual orientationist. Is that latter an "ist" yet.
66 FTW
I love you Elie! Thanks for the cogent response. A lot of the posters on here -- and particularly the really nasty ones -- can't step outside of themselves and see the world from another person's perspective.
They are threatened by the notion that there are systemic obstacles that some people have to face and overcome based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. at biglaw. Of course, to anyone of these "others" who actually lives it, it is crystal clear that with something as subjective and political as informal mentoring relationships being the primary driving engine of work assignments, and works assignments in turn primarily driving advancement at biglaw, it may be more difficult for these "others" to advance than their white, male counterparts. Why?
Because as a general proposition, old white, male partners feel more comfortable with younger versions of themselves. They have to make an effort to mentor an "other," and often it is difficult to get over the initial awkwardness. Multiply this seemingly innocent example/explanation many times over and you start to see real discrepancies in work assignments and by extension minority retention rates.
Cue the defensive @ssholes who want to accuse ever minority lawyer at biglaw of being illiterate knuckle-draggers (projection anyone?).
Those 2008 numbers don't mean anything unless you compare them to 2007 numbers. Sure, minorities are billing less, but if that has always been the case, it doesn't mean anything. It just shows that minorities are lazy.
To all dumb bastards on ATL:
In the mid-1990s, I used to work for a V10 firm doing transactional work. During my first week of work, I and the rest of the firm were invited to a "meet and greet" to welcome the first year class.
After many hours of drinking, one of partners sitting at table began to play a "game." It was basically "guess who's a part of the Tribe." When he came around to me - the only non-white guy there - he made some lame ass joke how I could be like Sammy Davis, Jr. (I know, a riot). The partner and the other heebs around the table thought (or pretended) it was hilarious.
Now, if you don't believe some partners feel a closer bond to certain folks than to others, then you're just dumb. Because I have trouble letting things just slide, I decided that if I couldn't beat them, then I'd join them. I made an effort to tap every decent looking female Tribe member at the firm that I could. Before leaving the firm after a few years, I tapped 4 of the female Tribe members. Three had pretty good head skills and one was just a damn freak.
I'm looking for a job - graduated 395 out of 402 from UC Hastings.
White Male. Partner track preferred. Will not consider discovery/contract work. Excellent references available.
91-
Whatever.
"They are threatened by the notion that there are systemic obstacles that some people have to face and overcome based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. at biglaw."
Who are they? As a white, conservative male, from the Midwest, there many systematic obstacles for me to overcome when trying to find a biglaw job on either coast. The need to placate vehemently vocal minority advocacy groups prevents many "majority" candidates from the success that they might otherwise achieve.
Is there discrimination? Yes. Should we tolerate it? No. Have you ever been in a meeting where someone said, "We need more white male conservative associates..."? Because I've been in meetings where people have said, "We need more minority associates and more female associates."
The hypocrisy on this issue is ridiculous.
That's because they are too busy drinking malt liquor and chasing fat white girls.
93 - great story. No, really, it made a lot of sense and was a great example of racism in the workplace.
Wait, nope. No it wasn't.
Just shut up and do me in da butt!
@93
Good job fighting the stereotypes...
@93
What's your point? In all the time there you only nailed 4 chicks at your firm? Not something you should be bragging about.
@47: No. I snorted coffee, too. As they sing in "Avenue Q," Everyone's just a rittre bit lacist....
xo,
Crippled lady attorney with lots of work
93 = response of the year.
nope - during my time there, i only nailed 4 members of the Tribe
93=racist Sammy Daivs Jr
93 -
So friendly jabbing of the sort that any socially adept person would view as ingratiating, you took as a mortal offense - and proceeded to express your anger through sex. I see - that's healthy. Try not to shoot up any aerobics classes in 15 years.
don't see any racism here. the young white men at my firm are just incredibly adept at lying about billable hours, and are far less concerned about the repercussions of being caught in such a lie.
93 -
That's exactly what happened to Mystal, except that they said he can be the group's Kenan Thompson.
"So friendly jabbing of the sort that any socially adept person would view as ingratiating, you took as a mortal offense"
Because it was fucking racist. Being socially awkward is no fucking excuse for being a racist. You'd be surprised to see how charming "socially awkward" get when I meet with them.
-In House Lady
95 - What kind of meetings were you in when they stated that they needed more more minority and female associates? Let me guess - they were recruiting meetings. Firms love to pay lip service to recruiting more minorities and females, and they usually do make sure that certain groups are represented during the summer programs, initial offers, etc. 91's point - which I'm not sure you understood - is that the problems begin when these associates actually start at the firm and try to establish mentoring relationships, receive work, etc.
There should be no problem in you getting a job on the coast from the midwest. You're going to have to go into greater detail as to why you think that is such an obstacle. I worked at a big firm on the coast and we interviewed plenty of candidates from midwestern schools. I never once heard someone state that they wouldn't hire someone from the midwest.
But, hey, if it makes you feel any better, I actually do know of a couple of cases where partners asked for white males. One was for a client in the Middle East that didn't like females. The other time was because the case was in a remote location and the partner wanted male associates to go to strip clubs with him (he was known for disliking minorities as well). So take heart, there will be people asking for you based your gender and race.
Ellie is an anit-white, racist jerk. The only time he actually sounds sorry about a bad job situation is when he is talking about minorities.
@93 - Shut up and die, you racist pervert. This is not NAMBLA.
@105 FTW
-84
@108
In your mind, does "racism" equal somebody discriminating against exclusively *your* race? Because you are racist. You have no problem with meetings where the discussion is "let's hire more minorities, let's hire more females..."?
Like @95 said, that is completely hypocritical. In your world, racism and sexism are okay so long as they favor you over other races or genders. How is that not racist?
-Not 95
Well . . . I've got a feeling MY billables are about to pick up.
Thanks for playing 95. 91 here. A lesson in empathy…
Close your eyes for a moment 95 and pretend that biglaw is dominated at the partner ranks by black women. Yes, the most prestigious, highest paying, bet-the-company, white shoe law firms in the nation are run by Sistas. Also assume that the majority of the lawyers at every level within biglaw are likewise black women, and that it had always been that way.
You, as an admitted “white, conservative male, from the Midwest” would at least notice that there might be some cultural differences between you, your bosses and colleagues, right? Might you find it more difficult to connect with the higher ups than, say, the black, female associate in the office next to yours?
Assuming that nothing about the politics of getting work at biglaw has changed – just the demographics, and that you noticed that it was harder for you to fit in, what do you say to your black, female counterpart who insists that it is all in your head?
@112
Al, you and me both...
--Jesse
Elie - I don't agree with you often, but this time I do:
JaKe FTW,
Elie is saying there's soft racism here. Maybe, but...
According to the numbers he cites, hours for hispanic midlevels are statistically insignificant from those for white midlevels. While it's certainly plausible that these soft racists or those not providing sufficient mentoring feel differently or provide different opportunities in mentoring for hispanic lawyers, this assertion seems problematic in light of the general socioeconomic similarities between blacks and hispanics and their progress in the legal profession.
Likewise, asians are on track for fewer hours than whites or hispanics. Given the stereotypes about asians are that they're harder working (in both a good and bad way), this doesn't gel with assertions of race bias in normal ways. Rather, (and this might get me accused of soft racism myself), while there are plenty of second generation asian-americans who thrive in litigation, many extremely hard-working first-generation asian lawyers, whose first time in the US was starting law school, simply do not have the language facility to be effective litigators and end up doing corporate work. Corporate work is currently pretty dead, ergo asian lawyers have fewer hours.
Anyhow, back to the point at hand. Care to explain how hispanic lawyers having basically the same hours as white lawyers doesn't disprove the canard of racism (which you seem to raise at every juncture it's remotely plausible)?
Cornbread
instead of grouping attorneys by race, why not group them by perceived aptitude?
Mr. 116 - you seem to be one of the dumb asses to whom 93 was referring. This might shock you - most of the "hispanics" in BigLaw are white hispanics, i.e., descendants of Spaniards and other European immigrants. If they didn't tell you they were from a Latin American country you'd never know. Thus, many of the partners probably have no idea or conception of these associates being the "hispanics" that you're comparing to blacks in the U.S.
How many native, black, or mestizos from Latin America work in BigLaw?
And Eric Holder wonders why America is hesitant to have a "conversation about race" (whatever that entails).
To put it frankly, as a white person, I am tired of the "racism police" (Sharpton, Jackson, academia, and now Elie) hunting everywhere for instances of white racism.
Any disparity between the races, however bogus (as numerous commentators have already pointed out . . . was this "study" statistically valid?) is automatically and irrefutably attributed to the evils of the white community.
If a white person asks whether the black community bears any responsibility, that person is immediately shouted down, accused of racism, and dismissed from the public "debate."
That leaves room for the "enlightened" whites, the likes of who can be found in any "Critical Race Theory" department at a law school, to lecture and chastise the white community because of the problems in the black community. 'The enlightened ones tell white people to recognize that all whites are necessarily racist, and that we must all flagellate ourselves upon the altar of white guilt if we are to receive forgiveness.
Similarly , if a black person asks whether the black community bears any responsibility, that person is either "not really black," or an "Uncle Tom."
Meanwhile, any accurate diagnoses of some of the troubling, destructive behavior in the black community (i.e, devastating illegitimacy rate, black on black crime, the glorified abuse of women in gangsta rap), or of the counterproductive results of well-intentioned social policies (affirmative action) is either ignored or traced back to the panacea of white racism.
Is there white racism? Of course. But it is not a panacea. And as long as people like Elie promote a victim mentality in the name of "social justice," we will not get anywhere in improving the lives of millions of black people whose potential is being wasted.
I think there are three causes of this phenomenon:
First is that due to the way affirmative action works in practice, the AVERAGE black associate probably is indeed slightly less intellectually qualified than the average non-black associate. I think this factor is relatively minor, however, since any black associate who made it through the elite law school admissions process and the BigLaw hiring process AND stuck around for more than a couple years of BigLaw associateship to become a "midlevel" clearly has a base level of competence or he would have been eliminated somewhere along the line. I think it's a rare case where somebody who is truly underqualified makes it that far, but those rare cases bring down the average relative to other groups where underqualified folks are more likely to have been weeded out earlier.
Second, I think there is some real discrimination out there--largely based on an exaggerated sense of the first factor's magnitude. It's not overt discrimination of the "that guy is black and I won't give him work because I don't like black people" variety. It's more subtle, along the lines of what #34 describes. If a partner already thinks (consciously or not) that black associates are likely at his firm because of AA, he's going to find confirmation of that prejudice in every little thing the black associate does wrong. This is bias at its most basic.
Third, related to the second factor but not quite the same, is what Elie points out in #79 surrounding mentorship and comfort zones. It's not that there's some secret Old Boys' Club out there directing work to whites over blacks. It's that for the most important and intensive projects, the partner is most likely to pick somebody he feels a connection with--who is likely to be someone with a similar background and personality. I'm a Jewish midlevel associate and am not surprised to find that most of my work comes from Jewish partners. The partners who don't send me work don't dislike Jewish associates. And the partners I work with have nothing against non-Jews. It's just that the partners who give me the most work are those I really click with. We understand each other and as a consequence enjoy working together. And a black associate at a firm with almost no black partners is less likely to find that sort of a real mentoring relationship.
The challenge we face is that affirmative action is designed to address the third factor, but at the same time exacerbates the first and second factors. Sadly I have yet to see a better solution to the problem of inequality proposed. Take away affirmative action, and maybe the first and second factors become less important, but the third factor remains unaddressed. So what exactly should we do?
116 here. Following up on what I was saying, while many hispanic lawyers do go into the corporate side (in part because their language skills are useful in cross-border negotiations), I don't recall seeing a single african-american corporate lawyer in my experience with biglaw, while I saw plenty of litigators. Seeing as this admittedly anecdotal experience would suggest african-american lawyers should be doing better than biglaw attorneys as a while it's curious that they're doing worse.
My firm brags about winning a diversity award on its web site home page for months because it never achieves any real successes (like winning cases).
Who's crying now?
Hominy grits
Study after study have shown that economic background has much more to do with relative achievement in life than race or sex. Poor people raise their children differently than wealthier people and as a result the poorer children do not learn the interpersonal skills that are necessary to get ahead in life. I'm sure this plays a big role in something like the ability to pick up work in a free-market system where selling and networking play a large role.
I'm black and i have 2000 hours already for the year. Thanks affirmative action for getting me into a public university and a T2 law school. Now i AM somebody. The more the hours, the better the person.
113: Not the midwestern white conservative male (female southern libertarian), but if your hypothetical situation was true, the alpha/southa men I know and love would start their own firms, and beat the "sistas" asses.
God bless and save the alpha male.
I'm black and i have 2000 hours already for the year. Thanks affirmative action for getting me into a public university and a T2 law school. Now i AM somebody. The more the hours, the better the person.
Thank god I work in an all white firm. We don't have to deal with shit like this.
Dallas attorney
as an employment lawyer, I can authoritatively tell you that 91/113's empathy trip is a bunch of racist clap-trap.
If I were the token midwestern male at that firm and everyone was running scared about affirmative action, I would have the sistas right where I wanted them. Just like minorities do at big law firms today.
They're bending over to hire you, give you work, and find ways to make you partner. You are responding by billing fewer hours and blaming it on racism. The only racism is working in your favor, and still you bitch because of the appearance and cultural characteristics of those trying to help you out.
If you people keep this up, you will be confirming the ugly stereotypes beyond a shadow of a doubt. Get off your asses and bill!
113 - Your scenario is irrelevant, as you fail to mention how hot they are.
116, not Elie here, but I’ll answer nonetheless.
I don't know what you mean by "soft racism." Is it like when Whoopi Goldberg, in response to the Roman Polanski arrest, said that the drugging and s*domizing of a 13 year old girl wasn’t “rape rape?” Look, there is racism and there is rape – no in between.
What I think explains the discrepancy in mentoring in the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of these cases isn’t racism at all, but simply cultural bias and bit of insensitivity or cowardice by biglaw higher ups. By that I mean, people tend to cluster around people with whom they are most comfortable, i.e., people who remind them of themselves. One of the primary ways that we self-define in this society is by race/ethnicity; other ways include gender and religion.
Taking this as the Bible truth, it doesn’t take a grand leap to arrive at the conclusion that older, white, protestant, male partners might find more in common with younger, white, protestant, male associates. Is this motivated by racism? Of course not. It’s a byproduct of human nature. But the end result remains: over time, people who don’t fit this general mold start to get pushed out of worthwhile assignments and opportunities for advancement.
Cognizant of this phenomenon, we must do our best to make sure that these “others” don’t fall through the cracks. Nay, law firms (and biglaw partners) must do their best to make sure that these “others” don’t fall through the cracks.
Five years ago, I graduated from a t-10, school, was on law review, and as a black woman, joined a fancy firm that had a free market assignment system. After spending nearly two years begging for work from partners, to mixed results (read: doc review, discovery motion practice, memos no one read). After two years of being frozen out, I left to clerk on the COA, moved to the federal gov't where I am very, very happy. I've run so many women who were in my position at my current job.
127: you are no more female than I am an octopus genetically evolved to the extent that I can operate a keyboard. Nice try.
- a REAL female southern libertarian.
@133 - Are you sure you weren't "frozen out" because you can't write in complete, cogent sentences? Not everyone can hack it in Biglaw, but then there's always government work....
133 is a flame. Nobody writes that poorly.
1,862 hours (average worked by African American lawyers in 2008) sounds about right to me. Even in a year with several late nighters, lots of weekend work and never leaving the office before 7 pm....my billables were just about that. At least an hour a day I chit chatted with galpals and did personal business. Plus a short break for dinner with other lawyers. The only thing this survey shows is that African American lawyers are more honest in their billing practices.
Or, if you prefer....they are too lazy to take the time to pad their bills.
-40 year old white chick.
134: 127 here. just looked up my skirt--yup, still female. maybe you are a lesbian?
93 - new shout for ATL - BGWJG (Black Guys With Jewish Girls)
133 = awesome.
The answer to all problems such as these is very obvious but it will never be honestly discussed.
Because of a combination of environmental and genetic factors, black people have lower average intelligence than whites and Asians. We don't have to like it - in fact, we shouldn't like it, and we should try to change it - but it's true, backed up by solid science.
In fact, the when the research came out, the government formed an AMA commission whose goal was to discredit the research - it was just too inflammatory. The commission found no significant faults.
Anyway, you can pick your own metaphor, but when you put a V4 into a V8 race, it's not going to finish so well. The solution is not to subtract 30 seconds from the V4's time, it's to figure out how to put a V8 into the V4.
If black people don't do as well in firms, it is because they have inflated credentials and should not be at those firms to begin with.
@113
See @130. I have good credentials and experience. But if I was a minority or female, I would have "great" credentials and experience. Anytime a firm has candidates with comparable credentials, the minority or the female will demand more attention. Feel free to debate whether systematic racism or sexism has created an environment that prevents minorities and females from achieving the same level of academic success as non-minority males. At the end of the day though, everything else being equal, a female or a minority is going to get the nod.
-95
Yes! Obama is made president and racism is over, HALLELUJAH!!! If it wasn’t for the depictions of him as a monkey along with the incredibly incendiary comments many of you are making, maybe I would say we should end AA yet you all continue to keep racism alive. To those of you who are lawyers and or soon to be lawyers thanks for continuing to tarnish the image of law. Maybe one day we will have people in the profession who actually care about justice and equality. If associates and partners were able to speak as candidly in the office as they do through this medium maybe then we could actually understand the root of the problem.
Why is this story being portrayed as a negative, necessarily?
I'm a white midlevel on pace to bill over 2,400 hours this year. I'd love to be billing a lot less, and this study indicates that I would be billing less if I were a minority.
This will only become a story if it results in disparate bonuses, layoffs, etc. Right now I'm envious of all the slackers in this study, of all races, who are all going to bill 500 fewer hours than me this year.
Yes! Obama is made president and racism is over, HALLELUJAH!!! If it wasn’t for the depictions of him as a monkey along with the incredibly incendiary comments many of you are making, maybe I would say we should end AA yet you all continue to keep racism alive. To those of you who are lawyers and or soon to be lawyers thanks for continuing to tarnish the image of law. Maybe one day we will have people in the profession who actually care about justice and equality. If associates and partners were able to speak as candidly in the office as they do through this medium maybe then we could actually understand the root of the problem.
127/138: No sweet pea, just don't need the attention of men quite as desperately as you seem to. Your post was overkill, plain and simple. You were just a little too eager to transition the conversation to your praising of alpha males, a concept not yet introduced in the comment thread.
"God bless and save the alpha male?" That's LULZY. "Beat the 'sistas' asses?" That's pathetic. Your implicit suggestion that the "alphaness" of your cute little "[white] alpha males" is a quality somehow inherently correlated with skin color is criminally stupid.
You're either secretly a white male, or desperately seek to curry the favor of white men. Given your laughable preoccupation with "alphaness" I'd suspect you have a raging daddy complex.
Good luck with that. Sista.
11,
They didn't "outclass" them. They took the work that WASPS thought was dirty, like bankruptcy and litigation. The WASPS held onto the sophisticated transactional work. Also, Jews didn't have the same history in the U.S. That effects things.
The truth is that the whole structure of law firms and work is about some sort of discrimination - including, but not limited to, racial. In the normal world you get a job to do and you do it. In law firms, the work is parceled out subjectively based on personality, competence, friendships, expertise and whim. Is it any wonder that the associates who are (presumably) most like the partners get more work? That has always been the case and always will be.
How much more black could an hours-deprived associate be? The answer is none, none more black.
At my firm, we always say "love your brother.". I mean, we don't literally say it . . . We don't literally mean it. But nonetheless the message should be clear.
For real though, BigLaw is an inherently racist, sexist, and above all, classist institution. There's no way around that fact. No joke.
141: why would average intelligence matter when top firms only take statistical outliers?
Using race to get into a better college, better law school, better firm, and now better work at the firm? That's a new one.
At some point performance and accountability should become more important than handouts to upper middle class kids of modest intelligence taking advantage of something which happened 400 years ago to someone else.
I scored a 158 on my LSAT, do you think I can get into HLS if I write about how racist the LSAT was in my personal statement?
147, yeah, you're right, the Jewish lawyers at firms like Wachtell and Skadden have never done sophisticated transactional work.
please this will have little affect on minorities' job security. Firms need to keep minorities so they can state on their websites that they are committed to diversity.
Also, minority law students will continue to get a disproportionate number of interviews than their credentials justify. Of course, the students need to impress once in the interview but I've seen plenty of less qualified people get interviews and/or jobs just because they could check off a certain box or they went thru a minority job fair.
While the fewer billable hours may be unfair. In the grand scheme of legal hiring/retainment, a minority's race often benefits them in the current legal job market.
147,
We are talking about when Wachtell and Skadden were founded, dumbass. Not today.
153,
Think to when Wachtell and Skadden were founded, dumbass. Not today.
I love how some people (who have obviously never worked a day in the "real world") are claiming that biglaw is more racist than the real world.
do you think that any employer, other than federal contractors, the government, or Fortune 500's, are bent on achieving "diversity?"
Biglaw is as good as it gets for my dusky-hued fellow-travelers. And the gays.
Not so good for the women, but that's their fault for choosing to pop out babies instead of working for a living.
***Breaking News***
A scientific study conclusively established that black basketball players, in the NBA, get more playing time than white players, also in the NBA.
What the hell? Someone should do something about that!
The data show a roughly one-week difference in projected 09 hours between black and white associates. This finding however has been cited by numerous commenters here as consistent with various theories of black inferiority---of the difficulties of succeeding with "modest intelligence." Obviously, this herein self-identified master race did not do the reading, but instead presumed that it would show further epic failure by black people at all times, which is one of the constant truths of their cramped, furious little worlds.
First to say I love David Saint Hubbins.
Well I hope all of you who voted for Brother Obama just in the hope that race relations would improve in this country feel really good about yourselves. Thanks a lot, jerks!
146: Yes, commenting anonymously on blogs gets me so much of the attention I seek from white males.
Actually no, it doesn't. Being pretty and loving men gets me all the attention I want from males. Of all races.
Deal with it.
Btw: in addition to hating white males, you now have a problem with "daddies?" That is so sad. My father is awesome. You should get help with your anger.
Did anyone ever notice (not 113 evidently) that whenever someone starts an argument in a forum intended to rely on concise and direct commentary with a tortured, overlong hypothetical, they're probably doing it to come up with some cockamamie defense of affirmative action or some other ridiculous and otherwise indefensible liberal cause?
If you have to try that hard, you're probably just missing the simple and obvious answer, blinded either by stupidity or blind allegiance to doctrine.
what did 40 write?
Following up on 154's point, maybe black associates have lower hours because their minority status gives them more perceived job security and thus less motivation to hussle for work and/or pad hours.
Where are all the crusading white guy commentors in response to 141's obviously racist diatribe? Quick to point out Elie for his covert "racism," why not bash 141 for (his?) overt racism? Here’s your chance! Quick, prove how much you guys are champions of colorblindness. Invoke the name of MLK and shout down this brute. Shake your fists in unison in preservation of our post-racial society.
What’s the matter? Cat got your (forked) tongues?
Hmmm, I bet I know....
166.... racist for using the word "white" instead of "European-American"
166 -
If you never confront the unpleasant reasons for things we consider systemic failures, you are going to continue rearranging the proverbial deck chairs.
Before you characterize the IQ link as "obviously racist," please familiarize yourself with the Murray/Hernstein methodology and results. It's easy to dismiss a conclusion you don't like, but do yourself a favor and do a modicum of research.
And yeah, your reaction is typical - I don't bring this up at parties.
- 141
Favorite comments:
39
66
78
105
137
146
Favorite comments:
39
66
78
105
137
146
This survey proves nothing more than the fact that lawyers are generally bad mathematicians.
Everyone jumps to the qualitative analysis but nobody asks about standard deviations or p values.
The survey was conducted with 4,592 whites, 556 Asian Americans, 211 Hispanics, and 169 African Americans.
A 5% difference in billable hours between whites and blacks is unlikely to be significant given that the sample of black lawyers was only 169. The difference is certainly not significant when it comes to the Hispanic / White differential.
Hey Elie, can you at least raise this issue of statisical significance next time?
119 is a racist.
This country will never move forward and will continue to be the laughing stock of the world!
It isn't the 1950's anymore people. Get a life and start being human beings....not animals...
This country will never move forward and will continue to be the laughing stock of the world!
It isn't the 1950's anymore people. Get a life and start being human beings....not animals...
166/141 -- no one rose to your flame bait? Poor kitten. Maybe because the unsupported statements are beneath contempt? Or off-topic? Or that you're so inherently unsavory no one wants to engage with you (are you STILL not used to that?)?
150 took the trouble to point out that firms only take top performers, anyway. IF it were true that black people's IQs were lower on average, so what? Firms take top performers. So your racist point isn't even valid in this discussion. If you're saying NO black people can be as smart as a fairly smart white law student, we'll just laugh quietly or shake our heads in pity of you, and go back to grownup talk.
175/50 -
Sorry you are offended, really. I have no intention of offending you, though I realize that what I said is pretty controversial.
That being said, you should realize that outliers, let's say, top 1% in standard curve, will contain higher values than a curve with a lower median. Again, there is no magic here. Just go to Wikipedia, for a start.
Also, nice try on the ad hominems, but you don't really know me. Personal insults only work if they hit close to home - yours don't. Feel free to try again though.
151,
400 years ago, or 40 years ago?
162: How, precisely, does whether or not you're pretty relate to this conversation? How does the amount of attention you receive strengthen your argument? Why would you assume that I'm unattractive simply because I disagree with you? And, most importantly, why do you feel so threatened when another woman questions you?
And have you NEVER heard of a "daddy complex?" You must be a true intellectual giant. Go look it up.
In response to my observations, you first asked if I was a lesbian. Interestingly, your use of the term implied you felt that the label is an insult. You later implied that I must be either (a) ugly, or (b) a man-hater. Or both.
You did nothing to discredit my observation, in fact, you only strengthened it. When women like you feel threatened intellectually, you NEED to feel as though, at the very least, you are prettier than your opponent. I'm sorry to say, sweetheart, I am also good-looking. And I love men.
It's women like you that I don't like.
Assuming a standard curve. I'm no expert, but I can't imagine the data from your median study are conclusive w/r/t big law.
-150, but not 175.
@169 - Thank you.
-78
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
141 has made the most fucking racist comment of all!!
Let me articulate my sentiments clearly (for those imbeciles out there) . . .
African Americans are the most persistent and intelligent people, period. At the time of comprehension, black children learn to try harder (i.e. excel) in everything they do only to receive miniscule recognition from other ethnicities.
There is NO credible source which correlates intelligence to racial demographics. If anything, socio-economic status contributes to the derogation of minorities in this country.
Since no one else on ATL has said this, I will be the first. . .
Black people are the ALPHA and OMEGA of this world!!!!!! The sooner you accept this fact the more amenable you will be to higher learning.
141 has made the most fucking racist comment of all!!
Let me articulate my sentiments clearly (for those imbeciles out there) . . .
African Americans are the most persistent and intelligent people, period. At the time of comprehension, black children learn to try harder (i.e. excel) in everything they do only to receive miniscule recognition from other ethnicities.
There is NO credible source which correlates intelligence to racial demographics. If anything, socio-economic status contributes to the derogation of minorities in this country.
Since no one else on ATL has said this, I will be the first. . .
Black people are the ALPHA and OMEGA of this world!!!!!! The sooner you accept this fact the more amenable you will be to higher learning.
141 has made the most fucking racist comment of all!!
Let me articulate my sentiments clearly (for those imbeciles out there) . . .
African Americans are the most persistent and intelligent people, period. At the time of comprehension, black children learn to try harder (i.e. excel) in everything they do only to receive miniscule recognition from other ethnicities.
There is NO credible source which correlates intelligence to racial demographics. If anything, socio-economic status contributes to the derogation of minorities in this country.
Since no one else on ATL has said this, I will be the first. . .
Black people are the ALPHA and OMEGA of this world!!!!!! The sooner you accept this fact the more amenable you will be to higher learning.
141 has made the most fucking racist comment of all!!
Let me articulate my sentiments clearly (for those imbeciles out there) . . .
African Americans are the most persistent and intelligent people, period. At the time of comprehension, black children learn to try harder (i.e. excel) in everything they do only to receive miniscule recognition from other ethnicities.
There is NO credible source which correlates intelligence to racial demographics. If anything, socio-economic status contributes to the derogation of minorities in this country.
Since no one else on ATL has said this, I will be the first. . .
Black people are the ALPHA and OMEGA of this world!!!!!! The sooner you accept this fact the more amenable you will be to higher learning.
141 has made the most fucking racist comment of all!!
Let me articulate my sentiments clearly (for those imbeciles out there) . . .
African Americans are the most persistent and intelligent people, period. At the time of comprehension, black children learn to try harder (i.e. excel) in everything they do only to receive miniscule recognition from other ethnicities.
There is NO credible source which correlates intelligence to racial demographics. If anything, socio-economic status contributes to the derogation of minorities in this country.
Since no one else on ATL has said this, I will be the first. . .
Black people are the ALPHA and OMEGA of this world!!!!!! The sooner you accept this fact the more amenable you will be to higher learning.
182 - B+ flame attempt, but weak closing - it gives you away.
The Cleveland Show is not funny.
Just needed to get that off my chest.
Obviously, the Asians are billing less because all the smart Asians went to Med school.
In 1996, a total of three (3) African Americans scored at or above a 170 on the LSAT - this, according to Cornel West.
In one study, when African American children (age 7 and older) read at least one book per week, looked up and took steps to commit the definitions of unknown vocabulary words to memory, the median IQ score (on Sanford-Binet) of the subject group jumped 27%.
Looks like Blacks don't read b/c they follow Pac and not Gates "Yo Mamma" Jr. Otherwise they'd be just fine.
One thing I've noticed on this board is that folks keep saying AA is the main problem. Because of AA, white partners are less likely to give work to minorities. The main problem with this argument is that discrimination didn't start in law firms because of AA. Discrimination came well before AA.
AA reports tomorrow after the market close - AA always a good harbinger for earnings season - which will ultimately determine whether you guys have any hour to bill - period.
If AA gives lousy guidance tomorrow - TIMBERRRRRRRRRR.
Wow what a BULLSHIT article... maybe this means all those affirmative action hires aren't carrying their weight.
Bet you never thought of that Elie "It Only Takes One Bite to Get to the Center of a Tootsie Roll Pop" Mistal, did you?
What kind of LSAT score do blacks need to get into HYS?
167+
194 -
Not sure what those numbers are, but google Timoty Maguire, a law student @ GULC who, for lack of a better word, stole admissions statistics and published them. The AA push is very substantial, but it depends on the school. The lower you go, the fewer black applicants with school-appropriate scores remain - AA pushes them upward.
I know that the median score for blacks taking the LSAT is 143-144. (Cite: http://academic.udayton.edu/TheWhitestLawSchools/2005TWLS/Chapter2/racism03.htm). That is actually kind of shocking.
There is no such thing as discrimination in corporate America nor in BigLaw.
There is no such thing as racism towards Blacks in America.
No way.
Is Obama's aunt still living in the projects?
Everyone here is totally full of shit!!
- 141 = troll
- I'm white on the outside, but black on the inside --- likely coming in at 1650, where do I fit in!?!?
- we're all going to be mixed eventually anyways, so ....
First to say: WHO CARES!
Actually 182-6, blacks are not the Alpha and Omega. Instead, they started at Alpha, got about halfway, gave up because of all the racism and went back to where they began.
That's why you see all those Alpha Kappa Alpha bumper stickers.
183-86, irony ftw
183 has GOT to be a troll. Nobody could seriously cry racism in one sentence, while proclaiming black people to be the Alpha and Omega in the next.
It is always interesting to me how quickly white people forget history 101. It is often asserted African Americans are lazy - and that is why they get less work. This from a nation of people whose ancestors sat on their fat asses devising ways to kidnap millions of African youth from their home, drag them half way across the world and force them to work for life and build this country into the super power it is today. All because white land owners were too damn lazy to do the work themselves.
I mean - that's laziness to the nth degree.
This country is a superpower (or, was a super power) because of hundreds of years of FREE LABOR it forced from people who are now called lazy.
It then implemented rules that said any African American caught with a book could have any manner of things done to them - like having their eyes gouged out, testicles and private parts cut off, or tied between two horses and set on fire while the two horses were beaten and forced to run in opposite directions. As in - put to death for asserting the right to read.
Anyone who can say African Americans are lazy with a straight face is not only an idiot, but they should have the same done to them.
@ 41: And your ignorance is why urban cities like philadelphia have such terrible minority #s in their firm.
I am a minority, and I don't like affirmative action either because of all the negativity it creates.
That being said, like countless people here have said, if a minority works just as hard as a majority associate/partner and doesn't get equal treatment, THERE IS A PROBLEM.
The problem never gets fixed, because of the mindset of people like 41.
The ONLY way diversity will become a main and thriving issue with firms is when more and more CLIENTS start demanding it. Its starting to happen, only time will tell.
And only thing worse than a white racist, is a minority racist (against whites or their own kind.) !!
Elie, this is how it happens....
Bob and Walt are high school friends. Bob is black. Walt is white. Both are equally smart and hardworking.
Both got a 1200 on the SAT. Both had a 3.6 GPA in high school. Bob got into Northwestern. Walt got into Ohio State.
Bob got a 3.3 at Northwestern. Walt got a 3.6 at Ohio State, only because its an easier school. Both got a 163 on the LSAT because they're equally smart.
Bob, as a black guy with a 3.3 from Northwestern and 163 on the LSAT, got into NYU Law. Walt, a non-minority with a 3.5 from Ohio State and a 163, got into Cardozo.
Bob, a black student at NYU with slightly below-average grades (remember, 1200 SAT), got hired by a V25 firm. Walt, a white student at Cardozo with OK grades, got hired by a slip-and-fall shop in the suburbs.
Both are equally smart. Both work equally hard. Once upon a time, both were in the same school. Now, one is making 200k+ in Manhattan and the other is chasing ambulances all over Long Island. But you're right Elie, discrimination is keeping the black guy down.
Seriously, tell me why the phuck I should care about diversity at my firm as a partner? I care about the bottom line - if you can help me great - if not, I don't want to hire you.
204 - did you ever consider that the two associates didn't get equal treatment in hiring? Maybe the majority associates perform a little better because they had to be a little sharper and better prepared to get the job in the first place. Or to go to the same law school as the minority associate. Or to get into the same college. Hell, when you add up all the different times that the majority associates had to face a higher bar than the minority associates, why WOULDN'T you expect different results from the two groups?
No one could honestly and intelligently answer 113. No big surprise.
207 - one day they will realize what a catastrophe AA has been.
I liken it to giving $100 million to a lottery winner. Why do people get so pissed off? Partly envy, partly b/c they wonder if the lotto winner even knows what to do with it and whether s/he will squander the whole thing.
I will give you three reasons that haven't been discussed about why blacks don't bill as much as whites. First, they don't have as strong an interest in making partner because they are already making so much more money in comparison to their black peer group that they are not as motivated or interested in getting a salary over $300K. Result, there are less who are in it for long haul and without lots of those gunners bringing the average up, the mean drops below the Whites. Second, they know that with their skill set, education and special minority status that they can always get a job. So there is less concern about being fired for lack of a few hours. I don't believe the results of the survey that say Blacks are more concerned. Perhaps they are more concerned because they, in general, have less family money to fall back on so the prospect of unemployment weighs more heavily on them. I believe that every black lawyer in BigLaw knows that part of what they bring to to the table is a check of the diversity scorecard box. They know that this check doesn't change if they bill 2,000 hours or 1,700 hours. So they can coast from time to time. There is no chance that a competent Black associate is being let go if they hit a decent number like 1,600. Not when it is so hard to recruit minorities in the first place. And finally, a small percentage of blacks who are not very good at the BigLaw job are kept on at firms because of the desire to keep the diversity numbers up and because of a slight but not insignificant fear that if the black was fired they would turn around and sue for discrimination. Trust me that the one black fifth year in the firm has to do something pretty bad to get the axe. And it is certainly going to take more than coming in at 1,500.
Remember the actual hours difference between blacks and whites is not that different according to this study. If wouldn't take much influence from the three factors that I described above for that to account for a large percentage of that difference.
I won't completely discount the two reasons most commonly cited (discrimination and AA), but I will say that the partners at all firms are very well educated and worldly people, often with a liberal bent. At least in NY, most of them went to East Coast colleges and at this stage almost all of the partners went to college in the 60's or later. (A person who graduated from college in '65, would be 66 or so by now, substantially older than the majority of partners in any firm.) So these partners aren't card carrying members of the KKK or anything like that. So I suspect that there is very little overt racism from this group. Second, the AA factor, while I think it is a part of the issue, isn't that big a deal. Unlike the lawschools which consistently accept Blacks with much lower academic backgrounds than their white peers, the BigLaw firms do not have nearly as strong AA preferences. So, while there is a difference in grades between the whites and blacks at most firms, but it isn't that great. I suspect that if there is a qualitative ability difference between the Blacks and Whites at a firm, it is not based so much on the skills they have at the start of their careers, but it is the three factors that I mentioned above that may result in a weaker group of Black lawyers or at least a group with less billable hours.
But all this said, even if you think this hours difference is really the result of a racist plot by the white folks. Isn't it funny that the result is that Blacks have higher hourly pay rates than their White peers? Billing 1,850 hours in BigLaw isn't such a bad thing.
206 - ever stop to wonder that maybe diversity will increase your bottom line?
211 -- Why would it? The type of "diversity" espoused by the left entails forcing (some) under-qualified people upon, in this case, law firms and their clients. Lower-quality work does not help law firms' bottom lines.
211 - yes, but the diversity of viewpoints is beneficial for any service provider to have and will ultimately benefit the client.
208 - here's my attempt at an honest, intelligent answer to 113. If I were white male at a firm run by black women, in a world where all the firms were run by black women, I'd wonder how the hell I managed to land such a prestigious job when I don't look like any of the others. And, assuming I'm smart in your example, I'd realize that I got that job in the first place due in large part to the fact that (i) I was given favorable treatment when applying to college due to my being white in a world run by black women, (ii) I was given additional favorable treatment when I applied to law school and (iii) this firm run by the "Sistas" decided they really needed to add some color to their ranks, and favored me yet again. I would realize that I have a better job than I would have if I was instead a black female. And then, realizing my good fortune, I would stop whining.
213 - is it possible to achieve diversity of viewpoints without systematically discriminating against white and Asian people? If so, I'd like to achieve this magical diversity of viewpoints without being a racist.
YNS
All white people complaining here are complaining because you are self-entitled egomaniacs.
215 -
That's a no. The whole point of meaningless buzz-terms like "diversity of viewpoints" is to repackage by another name something we already know as affirmative action.
There is one bottom line: more blacks in positions from which they were previously excluded, whatever the cost. The justifications change to accommodate political expediency, but the bottom line stays the same. This is about white guilt on one hand and black grievance on the other - "diversity" is bullshit.
Did anyone else expect the headline "African-American Lawyers Searching for Hours" to be followed by an article about finding something that was lost? Disappointing.
62 - most Native Americans I've met are like 1/64th Native American and only feel a connection to these cultural roots when asked for a tribal affiliation number that will get them into a better school
178: I thought you said I wasn't a girl?
You are very angry. I said nothing about how ugly you are. But from your defensiveness, I'm guessing pretty damn ugly. You might have a good personality, which makes up for a lot, but due to your extreme anger, I'm guessing not.
Good luck.
To the contrary, the firms I've worked at bent over backwards to recruit and retain minority employees. No such effort was made with respect to women, however, who make up 50% of the population and are much less represented by proportion at law firms (as they progress in seniority). African Americans are, what, 10% of the population? Then why should they ever be more than 10% of any given firm? Where I live, the real problem is with recruiting and retaining Hispanics, who are 50% of the city in which I live.
I have no doubt that racism, like sexism, is alive and well. But to say that most firms aren't conscious, if not overly so, of their image with minorities, is bunk.
Affirmative action proponents got absolutely owned on this comment thread
214, you are an idiot.
This makes total sense since most affirmative action hires can't really practice law, so when times are tough, even big law firms need to assign work to those who can do it right the first time.
210, you are a dumb@ss. Way to paint all black people with a broad brush, assuming with no evidence that "they don't have as strong an interest in making partner because they are already making so much more money in comparison to their black peer group...." What you fail to realize, knuckle-dragger, is that white associates at biglaw also "are already making so much more money in comparison to their [white] peer group[.]" Run the numbers. Do they also have no reason to want to become partner, and thus no interest in getting biglaw hours?
With reasoning like yours, it’s no wonder that you are blaming your life's failings (and inability to land biglaw) on blacks through an anon message board.
Wait, screw your point of view regarding the disparity between the hours of black and white associates, what we all want to know is how do you type without your white sheet getting in the way?
Cool trick, dumb@ss!
@194
172. At least that's what it took for me.
-Black HYS 3L
1. You’re a 1L at some school I’ve never heard of, so stop pretending that you are a partner when you post a comment.
2. Wow! I hope there are not that many racist posting to this website, and that it is only a handful of fools spewing their bile.
3. I have never been asked for my SAT or LSAT scores at a job interview—because no one cares.
4. Run twice as fast, and jump twice as high. If you don’t get it, don’t worry this comment wasn’t meant for you.
228
Dead. On. My parents have been saying #4 to me since birth and it has never failed me. Out of pure curiosity, how often do you find yourself thinking "this person is functionally retarded" when speaking to a member of the majority?
YAWN. where's roxanna?
I am so frigging sick of people complaining how things happen because they are black. Not everything is about race. I mean is this "It sounds to me like minority attorneys are freaked out and doing everything they can, but overall the hours are mysteriously more likely to wind up on the desks of white attorneys. Not by a lot, but by enough to skew the numbers." really necessary? Putting "Mysteriously" in italics? Give me a fucking break already.
I am so frigging sick of people complaining how things happen because they are black. Not everything is about race. I mean is this "It sounds to me like minority attorneys are freaked out and doing everything they can, but overall the hours are mysteriously more likely to wind up on the desks of white attorneys. Not by a lot, but by enough to skew the numbers." really necessary? Putting "Mysteriously" in italics? Give me a fucking break already.
I have to say that I have never been a huge proponent of categorizing people based on race or gender. Having said that, I think on balance affirmative action has been very positive for this country. There absolutely have been historical disparities between the availability of education and opportunity in this country and a concerted effort to add some balance and opportunity to the system has been a factor in establishing a thriving black upper middle class in this country. I think we should continue such programs at least for now. The question is when do we pull the plug and when have we achieved enough balance to suggest that the field is level enough. This is the post-racial America that I think we all want to get too but the comments here suggest that a lot of views on both sides need to change in order to get there.
There are about 226 posts in this thread. In many (dare I say most) of these posts the reported underbilling by black associates has been attributed to a lack of work ethic, a lack of intelligence or both. It seems to me that the comments in this thread and every other thread implying instititutional racism or disparate treatment, should serve as a sufficient example of what minority associates (black associates, in particular) are up against.
It's all very sad. These attitudes, prejudices and actions are the result of a fundamentally perverted system and I really don't think that we, as a nation, have fully recovered from the effects of that system.
If you liken our national recovery to that of an individual's recovery after suffering a great loss, you could say that as a nation we are still in the guilt phase and are rapidly entering the anger phase. Just to refresh your memories the phases/stages of mourning are: Disbelief, Denial, Bargaining, Guilt, Anger, Depression, Acceptance and Hope.
I think we will eventually reach a point of acceptance and hope and we'll know that we have reached that point when the responses to studies like these are more rational. Perhaps one day a thread like this will generate 300 responses of "we need to do better" or even 300 responses of "this study is clearly flawed."
Personally, I look forward to that day. However, in the meantime, I take my cue from the advice in this article and the comments that many of you have made. I accept that life isn't fair and I accept that my race and gender mean that I have to work harder for the same recognition, and so I work harder. I accept that people will assume that I am stupid and so I spend my days trying to be a "pleasant surprise." I accept that my history means nothing, and everyday I must guard against making the error that will irretrievably damage my reputation. I do my best.
I believe that in the age of Barack Obama, there are many more opportunities for me to get what I want out of life if I'm willing to accept that success is unlikely to come easily. Personally, I think more associates, black white, purple, pink, etc... would benefit from this attitude. Nevertheless, it is somewhat galling that I am expected to be perfect in order to be viewed as competent, while a similarly situated majority associate may be able to get away with just being good. Shrug. C'est la vie.
Naturally, if the stats were reversed everybody would surmise that whites have lower billables because they're so gosh-darn efficient.
Indeed, friend -- Run twice as fast, and jump twice as high!
It's simply impossible for the folks who read this tabloid to understand the plight of African Americans. Racism is your birthright, and racism is your life. Those of us on the receiving end of this racism are sick and tired of hearing how you don't like affirmative action, how you don't like advancing African Americans even though they might not be as qualified. Those of us who have suffered all our lives from your racism have done the best we can to thrive in a racist country. Yes, Obama was elected President, but we all know that Obama is half white, and that's the only reason whites voted for him. So, before I say more, let me say this: Fuck you all, you white motherfuckers.
237 = Elie.
237 - half white = black in the eyes of whites. Just so you know.
237 = troll, racist white guy trying to inflame other white guys to rise up and anonymously bash black people. Don't take the bait. You're better than that.
Most blacks in BigLaw aren't ghetto-raised Compton-escapees. Some are, but most aren't. Most have been privileged from the start. It is reasonable to conclude that a black kid who went to Exeter, then to Dartmouth on a 1250 SAT, and to CLS on a 165 LSAT, simply is not as talented or hardworking, or both, as someone who went to the same places but with a 1500 and 175, black or white.
It is important to bear in mind that nobody here is saying that a black kid with a 170 LSAT is dumber than a white kid with a 170 LSAT. The problem arises when you start giving points to the black kid on the theory that his going was harder, but you make no research whatsoever into his individual history.
The son of a teenage drug-addict gets the same admissions bump as a Cosby kid. The only thing that matters in admissions and hiring is that both are black - black people (and everyone else) should find this fucked up.
241, how do you know the backgrounds of "most" black people at biglaw? Since you don't, does the rest of your argument also fail?
FAIL.
242 -
I admit that my evidence is anecdotal, but having worked with numerous black attorneys over the past 5 years, I can tell you that I met precisely one who has a hard-luck ghetto back-story. The rest are invariably from mid-to-upper mid class backgrounds.
If you have better evidence, I would be happy to see it.
243, I don’t know the back stories of most of my colleagues at my firm – white, black or otherwise; and I’m confused about how a post by Elie on the disparity in hours billed between minority and white associates morphed into a flame war on Affirmative Action.
Nonetheless, I’ll bite. Full disclosure: I’m a proponent and recipient of AA. I come from a single family home, but my mother has an advanced degree from Johns Hopkins. I guess I grew up middle class, but that’s not really the point.
Affirmative Action is by its nature an imperfect program designed to integrate many of our nation’s venerable institutions that, without such a push, would still be lily white and almost all male. If you take the position that there is nothing inherently wrong with a system that is exclusionary, lily white and almost all male (achieved through centuries of de jure and de facto discrimination), then there is nothing more to say.
But if you, like me, see this as fundamentally flawed, then you must ask yourself how we right this great wrong. Brief history lesson: whether you were of high socioeconomic status or you were the lowest socioeconomic rung on the totem pole, signs which read “No dogs, No N*ggers” still applied to you if you were discernibly black. Period. Bull Conner’s dogs didn’t check your bank book before biting you; the water hoses lashed all black skin; the nooses fit around all black necks. The discriminatory laws (from slavery to Jim Crow and beyond) did not differentiate on the basis of economics, only race. And so an entire people was held back because of ethnicity and nothing more.
So then how do you propose reversing this racial disenfranchisement? By striking race from the equation and changing affirmative action so it takes into account poverty? It’s misplaced logic, isn’t it? It’s like bringing a knife to a gun fight, right?
Now I’m well aware that most white men today had nothing to do with the disparate treatment that is at the heart of AA as it exists today. But aren’t they the beneficiaries?
I see there being only two options: 1. Get rid of AA altogether, which is what I suspect the SCOTUS’ white fire fighters case in essence has done; or 2. Keep AA in place, as Justice O'Connor proposed in the Michigan law school case, for another generation.
But to fundamentally alter AA’s thrust from race to economics pretends that the underlying problem to be addressed isn’t racism, which history and the comments on this board clearly belie.
237 most certainly is a white guy, but he has a point. I'm not sure what the point is, but I think he has one, likely on the end of his dick.
237 -
"Yes, Obama was elected President, but we all know that Obama is half white, and that's the only reason whites voted for him."
That has GOT to be the STUPIDEST FUCKING THING that anyone has posted in the history of the internet.
Let me get this straight - whites don't like black people, so they voted for Obama because he is salvaged by his white half? Really? Are you RETARDED? What does that make John McCain, a charcoal-Pygmy with hoops through his nose? You realize that Obama was elected over a STONE WASP, right?
The sad thing is, you are probably some 2L at GULC with a 155 LSAT. Ugh.
So then what is to be said about all of the underachieving white associates and law students in the world? You can't seriously believe that everyone who scores below a school's median (I'll be generous rather than use mean) or bills below required hours is a minority? Statistically there aren't enough AA candidates to account for the number of "below average" students/attorneys. And I'm referring to below average candidates at HYS and V10 firms.
If you're willing to reach the completely uninformed conclusion that there is a causal, rather than simply a correlational relationship between hours billed and minority status, then you must also be willing to conclude that the difference is due to: (1) racial animus on the part of those assigning work; (2) reduced quality of work among minority attorneys, leading to reduced work assignments; (3) reduced effort by minority attorneys; (4) increased honesty in billing by minority attorneys, leading to reduced hours billed; or (5) more accurate representations of billed hours by minority attorneys participating in the survey.
Unless and until a true experimental study is performed (which is likely impossible), rather than a correlational study based on self-reported hours, any choice from the five options above is as rational and informed as any other.
@ 234: Right on point, I don't even know if you are a minority or not but for the rest of you ignorant crackers, say everything your saying here to a minority's face. O wait, you can't because your always scared.
This article isn't bullshit. So to those who say it is, then keep living in your fantasy world. I work for a national law firm in Colorado that has laid off three corporate/finance associates, all of which were minority (latino, american indian, and middle eastern). These lawyers were fantastic and were respected by their peers. They were cut because of hours. Mysteriously, the most incompetent woman in the group was retained; she is the prototypical blonde bimbo who is one of the laziest attorneys in the practice. Still, in one fatal swoop, these good old boys slashed half their "diverse" attorneys. One word - RACISTS. When hours slowed down, the whites started getting them. Big surprise out here in the land of the white liberal (you know, we love minorities as long as they don't live in Boulder).
@249:
It is "you are always scared".
- Not too scared to correct you're sloppiness
No 248, I reject your premise that "If you're willing to reach the completely uninformed conclusion that there is a causal, rather than simply a correlational relationship between hours billed and minority status, then you must also be willing to conclude that the difference is due to: (1) racial animus on the part of those assigning work; (2) reduced quality of work among minority attorneys, leading to reduced work assignments; (3) reduced effort by minority attorneys; (4) increased honesty in billing by minority attorneys, leading to reduced hours billed; or (5) more accurate representations of billed hours by minority attorneys participating in the survey."
You set that up as a straw man to knock down. Maybe the disparity in hours can be attributed to the fact that most of the assignments at biglaw are dolled out by partners. It's a subjective process. Old white male partners, through no "racial animus," tend to be more comfortable mentoring young white male associates. Likewise, "others" sometimes find it difficult to break into this natural constituency and, over time, built less of the relationships necessary for work and advancement at large law firms. No hoods; no white sheets.
I would bet you that this may be the reason that most "others" (not just blacks) are scarce in the partner ranks at virtually every major law firm in America. Not racial animus; just an unfortunate byproduct of people not making the effort to change old ways.
While most of the purportedly economic/sociological/psychological theories about the pros and cons of AA are rather entertaining (and some may even contain elements of truth, whee!), they overlook a much more mundane - but, for anyone who's ever actually worked in biglaw, very real - explanation for the results of this "study." One word: committees.
Two salient factors: (1) visible minorities (like blacks and asian, but likely not 'white' hispanics) are much more likely, compared to their WASPy associate counterparts, to be pressured by the firm into taking on an array of non-billable, responsibilities. Need diversity on the hiring committee? Chances are, you pull some of the black and asian midlevels (bonus points if they are women too!). Have a presentation to make at the Asian Pacific Lawyers Association dinner? Chances are, it isn't Milford Digby, IV that will be responsible. Need to waste three hours on publicity photos for the website/glossy firm pamphlets? Bring out the minorities again - nobody wants to see crusty old white dudes. Want to recruit diverse candidates from Harvard and Yale? Guess who gets to make the trip from NYC, or Chicago, or LA. Sure, white associates have some of these responsibilities as well, but I'd say on average, minorities are much LESS able to simply fly below the radar and grind out billables without the hassle of several administrative, non-billable obligations.
(2) the actual hours disparity is rather slender, as many commenters have already pointed out -- we're talking approx. 100 hours per year, or about 8ish hours per month. So, even if minority associates are required to put in an extra 5 hours of non-billable work on average -- and, based on my experience, that's a fair, conservative estimate - that accounts for the bulk of the reported difference, assuming that associates across the board work a similar number of hours overall. [Hint: we might want to know the answer to that question before this study is even remotely relevant.]
Does racism exist in biglaw? Hellz yes. Should this surprise anyone? Hellz no. Do firms nevertheless care about "diversity" in ways that are thoroughly goofy? Double true. Does this "study" provide us with anything insightful about these dynamics? I'll leave that for the reader to decide.
PS: Elie, I like your work much of the time, but if you actually want to have meaningful dialogue about a topic like this, don't use garbage faux-empirical work as a starting point.
- the voice of reason
252, add "unintentional racism," or however you would coin what you described to my list of 5. Also add 253's insightul theories to the list, and so on. But I think you're missing my point - a simple survey showing a slight (possibly insignificant?) correlation between hours and minority status does nothing to to tell us why the disparity is occurring. Any reason we come up with will be based solely on opnion and/or anecdotal "evidence."
251, you're either clever or an idiot.
“a simple survey showing a slight (possibly insignificant?) correlation between hours and minority status does nothing to to tell us why the disparity is occurring. Any reason we come up with will be based solely on opnion and/or anecdotal ‘evidence.’”
254, I’m not defending this study. Its utility lies only in the fact that it points to the discrepancy in hours between minority associates and white associates at biglaw, and, by extension a larger problem: the discrepancy between minority associates and white associates at biglaw in advancement opportunities.
The way I see it, there are three possibilities.
1. Our fault, i.e., the collective fault of minority associates for being genetically inferior to whites, thus needing Affirmative Action and unearned entre’ into biglaw; once there, social Darwinism takes over and the fittest (white male associates) survive, while we, the unwashed masses, perish.
2. Your fault, i.e., angry hoards of menacing Whites Citizens Council type anglo partners targeting innocent minority associates in a scene reminiscent of "Bloody Sunday" with the intention of purging them from biglaw… forever!
3. Social awkwardness/phobia phenomenon, i.e., people gravitate toward people who remind them of themselves; it’s the most natural thing to do; thus, white partners forge closer bonds with white associates, though they bear no animus toward so-called “others”; over time, this phenomenon reinforces the skewed ratio at biglaw.
My bet is 3, although many folks on here seem to think 1.
Am I the only person who finds the numbers (both 2008 and projected for 2009) to be completely ridiculous? I don't where these people work or in what practice area, but no way are associates at my firm averaging anywhere near those numbers. I will be thrilled if I end the year with 1400 billable hours. Thrilled. If lawyers all over were really averaging anywhere near these numbers, there wouldn't be mass firings.
@244. These venerable institutions are not "exclusionary" and haven't been for 40 years. Even if they got rid of AA, there's nothing exclusionary about having a race-blind admissions process.
At this point,there is nothing new that I can add to this discussion, but I will try anyway. Had I weighed in earlier, I would have discussed the problems with AA and how it leads whites to be skeptical of blacks' intelligence/competence. But it seems pointless to make that argument here because it has already been made and the blacks in the audience don't accept it because it puts many of them on the defensive. ("the truth hurts.") So I will just say that if blacks want the racism to end in law firms, perhaps we need to end the reverse racism that fosters these attitudes. You can't have it both ways: if you want to end racism, you can't end it with reverse racism (preferential treatment). Conversely, if you want preferential treatment, please don't claim that you are against racism because, by definition, preferential treatment based on race is - like it or not - racism.
Another approach would be to do what the Jews did (and have always done) as discussed earlier: start your own. It's not easy, but nobody is stopping you from doing it. If you believe in yourself and your abilities, you will eventually succeed. And you won't have to worry about being discriminated against in your place of employment. If you believe that you are being discriminated against at a BigLaw firm, how effective are you going to be in your job you constantly are watching your back, especially after you have filed that EEOC claim. Even if you are eventually proven correct and vindicated after a lengthy lawsuit, the process will definitely take a physical and psychological toll on you. (This is something to think about if you happen not to have a strong stomach for this kind of thing. Of course, if you want to be a hero, then by all means stay and fight).
Let the slings and arrows fly!
259, let me let you in on a little secret. Some (not all) whites have always been skeptical of blacks' intelligence. It is one of the reasons that AA was instituted in the first place. With or without AA, people like you will doubt that I should have a place at the table based on my race. Who gives a sh*t? Certainly not me.
Thus, the argument that AA creates racism is just silly. You're better than that. Racism preceeded AA and it will be around long after AA is gone.
Now that I've dispatched with that silly threat, let's get back to having an adult discussion.
And another thing 259, I’m not sure if you or your hooded brethren who support your post even recognize the subtle danger in your words.
You said,"Another approach would be to do what the Jews did (and have always done) as discussed earlier: start your own. It's not easy, but nobody is stopping you from doing it. If you believe in yourself and your abilities, you will eventually succeed. And you won't have to worry about being discriminated against in your place of employment."
That sort of thinking undergirded the doctrine of separate but equal. It was on Justice Roger Taney's mind when he penned Plessy. Church it up in pretty prose if you'd like, but it's racist plain and simple.
Look, my ancestors built this country. The built the Capital, the White House and this nation into a super power. They were bought and sold on Wall Street and countless other slave actions. They fought in every war; died in every battle. They were here since this country’s inception and before even that (Jamestown). We are as American as apple pie and racism. The American Dream is as much my birthright as it is yours. For you to suggest otherwise is just offensive.
But let's set that aside. Here's a thought: why don't you leave? You and likeminded bigots can go and start your own lily white institutions. That way you don’t have to suffer AA, which you’ve described as “being discriminated against in your place of employment.” Indeed, “[i]f you believe in yourself and your abilities, you will eventually succeed.”
Godspeed, dumb@ss!
And another thing 259, I’m not sure if you or your hooded brethren who support your post even recognize the subtle danger in your words.
You said,"Another approach would be to do what the Jews did (and have always done) as discussed earlier: start your own. It's not easy, but nobody is stopping you from doing it. If you believe in yourself and your abilities, you will eventually succeed. And you won't have to worry about being discriminated against in your place of employment."
That sort of thinking undergirded the doctrine of separate but equal. It was on Justice Roger Taney's mind when he penned Plessy. Church it up in pretty prose if you'd like, but it's racist plain and simple.
Look, my ancestors built this country. The built the Capital, the White House and this nation into a super power. They were bought and sold on Wall Street and countless other slave actions. They fought in every war; died in every battle. They were here since this country’s inception and before even that (Jamestown). We are as American as apple pie and racism. The American Dream is as much my birthright as it is yours. For you to suggest otherwise is just offensive.
But let's set that aside. Here's a thought: why don't you leave? You and likeminded bigots can go and start your own lily white institutions. That way you don’t have to suffer AA, which you’ve described as “being discriminated against in your place of employment.” Indeed, “[i]f you believe in yourself and your abilities, you will eventually succeed.”
Godspeed, dumb@ss!
The real ethnic question is why ethnic Jews, who are a tiny ethnic minority in the USA at only about 3% of the American population, are hired over people of White Northern/Northwestern European (WASP) descent?
There is an incredible amount of Jewish ethnic networking happening that absolutely dwarfs the comparatively small amount of ethnic networking happening amongst American WASPs.
if anything, ethnic Jews are the most 'race conscious' group in the USA today, and they are the most discriminatory in terms of only hiring fellow Jews.
Most of you of guys have no idea what racism really is. Have some dude put his fist or a chain in your teeth for being the wrong something--that is racism. All this soft racism in the workplace bullshit is pity-me BS. Get the f*$% over yourself. Goddam ivy league panty-wearing boy-men is what I hear.
Some old senior manager/partner not giving you work because he doesn't like you as much as another gump is called a job. Happened to me plenty. Jews did it to me. Whites did it to me. Blacks did it to me. Keep moving. Don't expect anyone to give you a goddam thing. Ever.
Oh, and that "run twice as fast, and jump twice as high!" Please. The laziest guys I know say that crap. Black and white. The real hard cases just perform. No whining about it. No one gives crap what your sob story is. And giving one only identifies you as weak enough to need one.
The minorities should just start their own firms. Really, I'm not being snarky.
Lawyers don't add value added.
211
- ever stop to wonder that maybe diversity will increase your bottom line?
At least if you work as a public defender it gives you job security
203~
You're an idiot.
Wow, never been here before. Um, uh, interesting, uh, comments. You know it makes you wonder why minorities keep coming to the USA when it is such a wretched hive of racist villainy.
Wow, never been here before. Um, uh, interesting, uh, comments. You know it makes you wonder why minorities keep coming to the USA when it is such a wretched hive of racist villainy.