ILNews

Dean's Desk: Are we satisfied with the color of the legal profession?

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

ivan Bodensteiner DeanIn an earlier article (Indiana Lawyer, Aug. 28, 2013; Vol. 24, No. 13), I questioned the accepted wisdom that there are too many attorneys in the United States and suggested the problem may be in the distribution. I also questioned whether the lack of diversity in the legal profession leads to questions about the credibility of our system of justice. Ms. Odendahl addressed diversity in her article entitled, “Diversity in legal community growing, but pace too slow.” (Indiana Lawyer, Sept. 11, 2013; Vol. 24, No. 14) Others have expressed concern about the lack of racial diversity in the legal profession, but we have struggled in our efforts to make significant change.

Certainly photos of law school graduating classes and bar association members today look different than those taken 40 years ago. The most striking difference is the number of females. Without getting into continuing disparities in earnings and management, law schools and the profession have made progress toward gender equity. Why is racial equity so much more difficult to achieve? Here is my simple answer – the path to law school has always favored privilege and law school rankings, which are far too influential, and result in law schools favoring privilege even more.

In her powerful book, “Moving Diversity Forward: How to go From Well-Meaning to Well-Doing” (ABA 2011), Verna A. Myers says “[w]hite privilege is the name given to the implicit advantages that occur to white people in U.S. society, because they belong to a group that was long ago deemed ‘better than’ or superior” and “without understanding white privilege, it is hard to grasp racial inequality and its causes.” Id. at 109. In short, this is “unearned privilege.” Id. To help understand white privilege, Ms. Myers describes an exercise (“Privilege Walk”) she uses. The participants form a straight line, horizontally across the room, so they all have the same starting point. They are asked to step forward or step back, depending on their answer to each of the following questions:

• If your ancestors were forced against their will to come to the United States, step back.

• If most of your family members worked in careers requiring college education, step forward.

• If you were ever called hurtful names because of your [major identity markers], step back.

• If there were more than 50 books in your house when you grew up, step forward.

• If you were often embarrassed or ashamed of your material possessions, step back.

• If you attended a private school or summer camp, step forward.

• If you ever tried to change your appearance, behavior or speech to avoid being judged on the basis of your [major identity markers], step back.

• If your parents told you that you were beautiful, smart and capable, step forward.

• If your family owned its own house, step forward.

• If you ever were offered a good job because of your association with a friend, mentor or family member, step forward.

• If you believe that an employer turned you down because of your [major identity markers], step back.

• If your parents did not grow up in the United States, step back.

• If your primary ethnic identity is American, step forward.

• If your racial or ethnic group constitutes a majority of your organization’s leadership, step forward.

• If the head of your organization is of your same race/ethnicity, step forward.

• If you’ve been mentored at work by someone of your own race/ethnicity, step forward.

• If most of your clients (customers) are of your same race/ethnicity, step forward.

• If you frequently are the only person of your race/ethnicity at work meetings, step back.

Id. at 112-13. You get the picture. Now, who is in the best position to be the first person to reach the $20 bill, held by a person standing in front of the group? Id. at 113.

In admitting students, law schools continue to rely on factors associated with privilege, including undergraduate GPA (and the prestige or ranking of the institution awarding the degree) and LSAT score (often influenced by the quality of education and ability to pay for a preparation course). As long as factors associated with privilege continue to play a dominant role in access to law schools, progress in diversifying the profession will be very slow. Are we willing to discount white privilege and look for other factors that better predict success in law school and the profession? If not, we should not pretend we want to diversify the profession.•

__________

Ivan Bodensteiner, a nationally recognized authority on constitutional law and civil rights, is the interim dean at Valparaiso University Law School. He has served as interim dean since March 2013.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT