Biglaw

Davis Wright Tremaine's DEI Chief Yusuf Zakir Shares Thoughts On The Need For Diversity

Everyone knows the start of a good defense: definitions!

By  
on

diversity-5582454_1280 (1)Since the SFFA v. Harvard decision, attacks against diversity initiatives have been emboldened. People working in DEI positions have seen layoffs, applicants have worried about how colleges will receive their applications, and the acronym has reached a semi-slur status after the Baltimore bridge collision. With all of the smear campaigning that either deliberately obfuscates the meaning of DEI (like saying it requires rejecting the Ten Commandments) or outright maligns it as racism by another name, it is important to take the time and touch base on what people are actually talking about when they call for and defend diversity, equity, and inclusion.

I had a recent conversation with Davis Wright Tremaine’s Chief Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Officer Yusuf Zakir. After the discussion, I sent in a couple of questions for Yusuf to answer about the meaning of diversity, its significance,  and what its future looks like. What follows are my questions and his answers. 

CW: What is diversity and why does it matter? So much of the historical baggage around how Americans think about diversity initiatives is rooted in African American civil rights protests and legal cases. Is there a way to balance the original context of diversification with defining diversity in ways that are not necessarily tied to race? 

Definitions are important, especially in a moment where there is a lot of misinformation about diversity, equity, and inclusion.  

Diversity is the representation of varied identities and differences, including race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, disability, veteran status, etc.  Equity is the allocation of resources and opportunities and the elimination of barriers to create a path towards equality.  Inclusion is creating an environment where everyone is welcome, respected, supported, and valued.  

Diversity is an outcome.  Equity is the path there.  Inclusion ensures we’re on the path together.

While DEI has its origins in the Civil Rights Movement, DEI has significantly evolved since then.  Through the 1990s, the scope of DEI expanded beyond racial and gender issues and a recognition that there were material business benefits from DEI investment.  In the new millennium, DEI became more integrated with organizational culture with a corresponding increase in the number of full-time DEI professionals.  The tragic murder of George Floyd created significant forward momentum for the work as our country grappled anew with systemic racism.  

Sponsored

This is significant movement over several decades, though the work is still relatively new.  The pushback we are seeing against this work is, in some ways, expected and happens every time we see any societal progress.  It not necessarily a bad thing – in some ways, pushback against an effort means the underlying effort has had some success.  The pushback can also be society’s method of reaching an equilibrium or a compromise.  The important thing is that we are making net progress in this pursuit and I believe we are.

I don’t think we can or should extract considerations around race from DEI.  Racism has not disappeared.  The impacts of racism continue to be felt in every industry and in every societal dimension, including healthcare, housing, employment, finance, education, criminal justice, and so forth.  If we ignore these realities, we will simply let them persist.

Rather, we should continue to view DEI holistically, with race as one component, but understanding that there is a broader objective: creating opportunities for everyone to succeed.

CW: It isn’t uncommon for firms to frame hiring and retaining diverse candidates as something that the firm does for the community or because it is the equitable thing to do, etc. What are some of the material benefits that firms gain from having diverse employees? Does it help firms respond to globalizing markets in a way that they couldn’t with a homogenous workforce? I think about the tone deaf Kendall Jenner Pepsi commercial from a few years back — are there any similar law firm bungles that could have been prevented by a more diverse staff?

There are significant material benefits to having a diverse workforce – particularly in a law firm.  I’ll name a few.

Sponsored

First, lawyers and law firms are in the business of solving complex challenges for our clients.  We are far better equipped to solve these challenges when we have diverse teams.  This allows us to look at a problem from many different perspectives, ultimately resulting in a more effective and efficient solution.  I have seen this play out on diverse teams over and over, where teammates who have different experiences and backgrounds (on the basis of a variety of factors, including the traditional factors of race and gender) bring diverse perspectives to the table, resulting in more creativity and better decisions.

Second, creating equitable opportunities for success results in higher productivity and less turnover.  Unexpected or unwanted attrition has significant economic impacts – the costs of hiring and training are tremendous.  Creating equitable opportunities requires a recognition of the challenges for people from traditionally underrepresented communities.  It is really difficult to be “the only” or one of a few in any organization.  There are real challenges that can occur – including the exhaustion of being under greater scrutiny relative to others, inequitable access to sponsorship and social capital, being on the receiving end of microaggressions, and being held to a higher or different standard, resulting in limited room to fail.

When you compound these challenges, one of the impacts is that people might disproportionately struggle to access work that helps them grow and develop as a lawyer.  The vast majority of the time, when someone from a traditionally underrepresented group is facing challenges, it is because they ultimately are not able to fill their plate with good work.  

Third, managing risk.  While we have seen some increase in lawsuits targeting DEI efforts, there has been no slowdown in lawsuits by traditionally underrepresented minorities with claims of discrimination.  That continues to persist.  By committing to building equitable and inclusive organizations, we can mitigate that risk.

CW: How does a firm go about implementing diversity-encouraging policies that are meant to have impacts within a year, five years, or 10 years down the line in light of threats from Blum + Co. who promise to sue if they sense any preferential treatment based on race or sex that is either explicit or by proxy?

First, we need to understand what encouraging DEI really means.  For example, at DWT, our DEI vision is to foster a culture where all talented individuals – including those from traditionally underrepresented communities in the legal profession – can have, and can see, paths to success.

With this vision, what we are trying to encourage is actually additive – it starts with all people and includes those who are traditionally underrepresented.  It is not exclusive and it is not at the expense of anyone else.  People challenging this work see this as a zero sum game.  But, it isn’t.  It is about expanding the pie.

We implement this vision at DWT through our four pillar DEI strategy: 

  • Community: fostering an inclusive and belonging culture
  • Growth: developing the pipeline and ensuring equitable access to opportunities
  • Education: elevating individual and collective knowledge
  • Engagement: collaborating with external stakeholders—including clients—around our shared DEI commitment

This four pillar strategy intersects across the way we manage our firm.  For example, our Growth pillar intersects primarily within our practice groups where decisions around hiring, evaluations, and promotions reside.  We want to make sure that the objective of each pillar is intersecting with the place(s) where related decisions happen so that these conversations are happening inside the room.

When it comes to representation statistics specifically, we do not look at this in terms of preference or selection based on race, gender, or other categories.  Rather, we look at disparities in our data and determine whether there are any failings on our part that are leading to those disparities.

For example, nearly 40% of our associate population at DWT are racial/ethnic minorities.  If, just by way of hypothetical, some significantly larger number – 50% or 60% or 70% – of our associate departures are racial/ethnic minorities, then we have a statistical problem.  We would need to understand what led to this disparity.  Are there barriers to access, opportunities, or success that are causing this result?  If so, what and how can we address those barriers?  It could be that each individual departure is explainable or happened due to benign reasons.  However, if someone is leaving an organization because they have faced barriers that the organization could mitigate or remove, then that is on the organization to correct.  

CW: The four pillars of diversity at DWT have been helpful for incorporating diversity in the decision making processes at the firm. Which is the most important pillar? How would you encourage firms to incorporate that pillar into their structures?

The four pillars are like my children – I can’t choose a favorite.  They’re all equally important, in their own ways.  And that’s sort of the point of it – the strategy only works when we are firing on all cylinders within each pillar.  I’m grateful to have a team (seven people, including myself) that is dedicated to this effort and grateful to lawyer and staff leaders at DWT who integrate DEI into their everyday decisions.

Why I think this four pillar structure is so important is because it provides a lot of clarity to the work and an understandable roadmap.  We hear often about recruiting, retention, and advancement.  And those are important objectives, but they are difficult and amorphous.  You need a map to drive you towards action.  And that’s what we try to do within this framework.

CW: It looks like the way firms are discussing diversity and affirmative action is already beginning to change. What do you think about this change in course? What should advocating for and defending diversity look like?

We have seen these attacks on abbreviations before – there have been recent movements against BLM, CRT, and now DEI.  We are permitting people who have no expertise or understanding in any of these subjects to form a narrative.  DEI is being mansplained to us by people who do not understand it and are intentionally trying to mischaracterize it.  The underlying thread that runs through these attacks is a mischaracterization of the target.  Opponents have built BLM, CRT, and DEI strawmen and attacked those.

That’s why I said initially that definitions are important.  We need to define what we are doing and once we do, the strawman falls apart.  

We need to continue spreading the word about what this work is all about, pushing back against the noise.  That is unfortunately a new burden for all of us to carry, but this is the moment we are facing and we must meet it.

Ultimately, we really need to continue to remind ourselves and others of the objective.  I point back again to our DEI vision at DWT.  That is our North Star on this.  It is a vision that is additive and that sees the world as limitless in opportunity.

CW: How are you managing through the complexities of the Middle East crisis and how that intersects with DEI?

In the 10+ plus years that I have been in this space, this has been the most challenging situation that I have ever encountered (and this statement is not meant, in any way, to take away from the very real horrors happening in the Middle East – our challenges here pale in comparison, of course).

We are witnessing a significant rise in hate – including antisemitism, anti-Muslim, and anti-Arab sentiment.  Understandably, pain, trauma, and fear are the primary drivers right now. 

The Jewish community feels tremendously vulnerable and for very good reasons. The October 7th attacks were horrific.  Following those attacks, we witnessed a rise in antisemitism across the country and world. These experiences rhyme with history—the Jewish community is carrying staggering generational trauma. In light of that, it is reasonable for a community to protect and defend itself.

At the same time, Muslim and Arab communities have also been besieged, including in the legal industry where they are significantly underrepresented. The vulnerability and pain they are experiencing is real, too. Anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, and anti-Palestinian sentiment are wreaking havoc on people, personally and professionally. People have lost their livelihoods. Careers and civil rights have been snatched away. Communities have been othered and alienated. Muslim and Arab Americans feel like what is happening to them rhymes with the aftermath on their communities following 9/11.

As I talked about in this article in The American Lawyer, we must take several steps to navigate through these challenges: (1) engage in nuance, (2) prevent censorship; (3) acknowledge the pain; and (4) lead with compassion.

It is perfectly fair and reasonable for these different communities to feel pain, trauma, and fear. We must keep space for that. But, we cannot let those sentiments drive us. Rather, we must recenter ourselves around compassion—compassion for ourselves and for others.

On behalf of everyone here at Above the Law, we’d like to thank Yusuf Zakir for taking the time to help clear up some common (and occasionally deliberate) misconceptions about DEI.

Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord™ in the Facebook group Law School Memes for Edgy T14s.  He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boatbuilder who cannot swim, a published author on critical race theory, philosophy, and humor, and has a love for cycling that occasionally annoys his peers. You can reach him by email at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and by tweet at @WritesForRent.

Topics

, , , , , ,