If one ethnic group is underrepresented in Silicon Valley,
that must mean that other groups are overrepresented. One does not quite
understand why all groups need to be represented proportionally, but such is
the currently politically correct dogma. The same applies to college
admissions. If one group is systematically underrepresented that must mean that
other groups are overrepresented. Is this de facto evidence of discrimination or even cheating?
If meritocratic means have produced this disparity, they
must be adjusted in the name of diversity. But, since the number of places is finite,
if students with inferior academic performance are granted preferences, then
students with superior scores will suffer discrimination.
We have, of late, been watching high tech firms fall all
over themselves to be more diverse, so it is good to examine the prevalence of
diversity in today’s law firms. In 2014 Francis Menton, a retired partner in Willkie, Farr and Gallagher, a major New York law firm posted about the issue. Menton blogs
at The Manhattan Contrarian (via
Maggie’s Farm).
Menton was intrigued by an issue of The American Lawyer—from
2014—that stated that the legal profession, and especially New York law firms
were suffering from a lack of diversity. African-Americans were underrepresented
in their ranks.
Menton writes:
The
leading trade magazine for the big law firm industry is called The American
Lawyer. This month, they devote most of a full issue to what they call "The
Diversity Crisis." As they define the term, the "diversity
crisis" consists of the under-representation of African Americans in the
ranks of big firm lawyers, the even greater under-representation of African
Americans in the ranks of big firm partners, and the still greater
under-representation of African Americans in the ranks of the top partners
identified by The American Lawyer itself as handling the largest and most
important transactions and litigations. The cover illustration has photographs
of some 131 top attorneys identified as "[leading] big law's top deals and
suits"; just three are black.
To show how serious it was about the issue, the magazine
filled its pages with articles about diversity. For the most part, Menton
notes, they constituted an effort to make everyone feel guilty.
There
are no fewer than four feature articles on the subject, covering some 22 pages,
plus an intro called "About Our Cover" and an editorial called
"Time To Call It Racism?" Guilt pervades. Law firms are said to be
"lagg[ing]" in matters of diversity, and their record is called
"bleak." Charts show the percentage of African Americans at big law
firms dropping from 3.2% in 2004 to 3.0% in 2013, while the percentage among
partners increased over the same period, but only from 1.7% to 1.9%. Numerous
prominent firms are listed as having not one single black partner. Is this a
major problem?
But, Menton continues, if one group is underrepresented,
another is overrepresented:
while
African Americans may well be under-represented at the top ranks of the
American legal profession, there is one small ethnic group that is hugely,
hugely over-represented. That over-represented group, of course, is Jews. The
over-representation of Jews is so large that, inherently, all other ethnic
groups must be
under-represented, which in fact they are. Some groups are more
under-represented than others. It is not at all clear to me that African
Americans are the most under-represented among the remaining groups, nor does
The American Lawyer even address that subject.
… in
2012 there were 6,671,680 Jews in the United States, constituting 2.1% of the
population. What is the percentage of Jews among the partners of the top law
firms in the country? In an hour of internet searching, I can't find anyone who
has collected current data, but I am here in the middle of this industry. Among
partners of the top law firms in New York, I estimate that at least 25% are Jews.
Once upon a time Jews were suffered
discrimination at major New York law firms. What did they do about it? They
went out and formed their own law firms and competed in the marketplace. This
bizarre notion does not seem to have crossed the minds of today’s proponents of
diversity.
Menton concludes:
… the
most pervasive, blatant and overt possible discrimination could not keep them
out. Given the Jewish experience, and the very extensive efforts of all large
law firms today to recruit and promote blacks, isn't it a little hard to blame
black under-representation on some kind of hidden discrimination?
One might also say that high tech's extraordinary efforts to recruit for diversity might not be a sign of bigotry. Link here.
14 comments:
Some very interesting data on law firm hiring preferences:
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/55449.html
Why is everything a crisis? In law firms, diversity of thought and perspective is useful. What does this have to do with immutable characteristics?
The idea of proportional representation is a hallmark of the Left. They pose it as a solution to minority grievances. In the end, it wreaks havoc on systems because minority parties gain disproportionate, excessive power that seizes the system. A prime example of this is the Israeli Knesset and the coalitions majority mainstream parties must form with fringe parties in order to get anything done. It leads to deals centered on tiny details, which frays the social fabric and makes governments unstable. Given the way law firms function politically, the SJWs would be a disruptive force in the business of law, and business issues become more important as a firm grows.
Heather Mac Donald wrote an interesting piece last week in the WSJ about the infestation of university values at places like Google. Looks like the same can now be said of the "crisis" in the legal profession.
How much business involves developing personal relationships? How many important clients come from a certain social class? How many of them would feel comfortable working closely with someone from a markedly different social class? Surely, the law firms consider such factors... as David Foster's link suggests.
It has to be bigotry; the left demands that it be bigotry.
Law firms are pyramid schemes. As a law form grows larger, it must be more sensitive to profit-and-loss as it becomes corporate. Clients don't care about the law firm "corporation." They want expert service for the high fees they are paying. Social justice warriors will be a distraction, being that racial setasides at law firms are a form of social justice. Again, the client is paying high fees for expert service across an array of legal disciplines (sometimes extremely specialized) related to the problem at hand. The client is not paying for a racial composition of the legal team. They want results. And they no longer care if they are Jews, blacks, women, etc. They want results. SJWs are a business, cultural and team distraction.
"Again, the client is paying high fees for expert service across an array of legal disciplines (sometimes extremely specialized) related to the problem at hand. The client is not paying for a racial composition of the legal team. They want results. And they no longer care if they are Jews, blacks, women, etc."
I'm fairly certain that a number of major corporate clients definitely want to pay for a radial/gender composition of the legal team.
Things didn't turn out well for the people when Marcia Clark and Christopher Darren prosecuted the case against the Juice.
JP @Ughst 20, 2017 at 10:45 AM:
I'd be inclined to agree with you IF the criticism was a (well-connected/well-financed) public shaming effort aimed directly at the law firms, and the large corporate law firms were called out by name in the wider media.
But they aren't.
Hence the "diversity crisis" is pointed out in some larger context of "diversity in the legal profession" -- distributed across a huge, nameless, faceless professional sector that people don't think highly of already.
They don't call the big-named NYC firms "white shoe" for nothing. Barring a public "outing," these law firms are servicing big corporations, which makes them 2nd degree vendors.
Once you go beyond one degree, it gets too complex for the audience to care. Most corporate clients don't care how the sausage is made, they just want the result. They interact with their lead lawyer in the firm, and that's it. There might be some inside stuff going on, where they were college classmates or some kind of insider stuff like that. But that's statistically more likely to result in white-white interaction, right? If they get along with that person, I doubt anything else matters... so long as they win, keep the corporation out of trouble, and make their client point-of-contact look good. Just like every other situation in the commercial world where you see personal relationships, comparable pricing, and superior (or satisfactory) performance.
Corporate leaders/managers buy into big-name legal brands because they have to answer to CEOs, directors and shareholders who want performance. As they (used to), "No one ever got fired for choosing IBM." Same thing with the big-name law firms. Pick a name, keep yourself out of trouble. Corporate directors are not going to demand a diversity audit of the top law firm. Not a chance.
For example, I doubt they care about diversity at their outsourced IT supplier. I've never heard of a law firm in any large industry (and I interact with the automotive industry quite a bit) caring about the racial makeup of its professional services suppliers. It might help if one of those firms is owned by a minority, but I can guarantee you no one is going to do an audit on who that minority-owned firm hires on staff. And most professional services firms owned by a single individual aren't big enough to provide the level of service large corporations desire. Again, if those firms have top-tier specialists who deliver results and keep their client point-of-contact out of trouble, race/gender doesn't mean a hill of beans.
Again, unless there's some big, public outing of specific corporate law firms, and someone picks it up. I view this as highly unlikely, making it another article about a study about diversity in a profession. Nobody cares. Sorry if this seems cynical, but the human mind and emotional capacity can only care about so many SJW causes. This doesn't seem like one that'll stick.
"They don't call the big-named NYC firms "white shoe" for nothing. Barring a public "outing," these law firms are servicing big corporations, which makes them 2nd degree vendors.
Once you go beyond one degree, it gets too complex for the audience to care. Most corporate clients don't care how the sausage is made, they just want the result."
I'm not making this "corporate diversity push" up.
Facebook says, no diversity and we will cut your fee:
https://bol.bna.com/companies-use-diversity-data-to-hold-law-firms-accountable/
Believe what you wish. I bet Facebook hasn't cut fees in the outside legal help they need.
I recognize there's a corporate diversity push, i just think it's a lot of PR. Stuff's still gotta get done. They're not going to reorient their entire corporate purchasing regime overnight.
That's all I'm saying, JP. You believe what you'd like to believe. This SJW stuff only goes so far in reality.
"… in 2012 there were 6,671,680 Jews in the United States, constituting 2.1% of the population."
Um, who made that count? It wasn't the Census Bureau, and seems to me about 1.5 million over.
"Things didn't turn out well for the people when Marcia Clark and Christopher Darren prosecuted the case against the Juice."
Marcia Clark was Jewish, Christopher Darden was not.
"How many important clients come from a certain social class? How many of them would feel comfortable working closely with someone from a markedly different social class?"
I really don't think this is a major factor. Virtually all corporate executives have had experience working with people of markedly different social class, and quite a few of them grew up in a quite different social class than the one to which they have risen.
Decisions of which law firm to hire are of course heavily influenced by the opinion of a company's own General Counsel....I suspect that in general these people care less about social class than about law school attended, although these things are related. (I worked with one GC who during telephone negotiation sessions liked to flip through Martindale-Hubbell and make snide comments (with phone on mute) about the other party's lawyer's education)
Both color diversity and sex diversity deny individual dignity. They are a sophisticated form of racism and sexism, respectively, practiced by corrupt men and women.
Judge people by the color of their skin = color diversity
Judge people by the content of their character = diversity (of individuals, each with their own unique dignity).
Post a Comment