ILNews

Blomquist: Embracing Diversity for the Greater Good

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

blomquist-kerryI sat down to write this column about recognizing the strengths in our diversity in the middle of the 2013 federal governmental shutdown…it was challenging at best. But then I thought the timing was perfect. Right now, it is pretty obvious that we spend much more time highlighting our differences than highlighting our many similarities. In the end, we have to rely on our abilities to focus on the latter to work for the greater good. It was Indira Gandhi who said, “You cannot shake hands with a clenched fist.”

October has been designated “Diversity Awareness Month” by the American Bar Association. I know this because I am on the National Conference of Bar Presidents’ (NCBP) Diversity Committee and as such I get to work with some great bar leaders to promote the best and most effective diversity programs, initiatives and ideas from all different levels of the organized bar. Diversity refers to meaningful representation of and equal opportunities for individuals who self-identify with those groups that are historically under-represented in the legal profession.

This is an increasingly important issue for us as lawyers and as managers of lawyers. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, by the middle of this century white Americans will comprise less than 50 percent of the population of the United States. It is critical that diversity within the legal profession keep up with the overall growth of diversity in our communities. It’s a sound business conclusion because that represents an overlooked but substantial book of business. It is a clear ethical conclusion because as leaders of this bar and of this profession, we must help underserved populations access their system of justice.

This week I had a chance to email NCBP Diversity Committee Chair Steve Toole about the work the IndyBar is doing in this arena, specifically to brag about this summer’s wildly successful 2013 Diversity Job Fair. I said early on that this column will be used to highlight the great work of this bar association and its leaders and on that note, let me brag about one thing: every once in awhile, I can pick ‘em. Shelley Jackson from Plews Shadley Racher and Braun agreed to chair this year’s Diversity Job Fair Committee and she and her committee did an extraordinary job.

Shelley and her committee engaged 28 employers who interviewed 72 students of color and diverse backgrounds from all over the country. This year, they added a student workshop called, “What the employer wants to know in a 20 minute interview” with a capacity of 25 students. They had a waiting list. Also this year, and for the first time, they hosted an Employer Retention Workshop. It also proved successful, and showed again that one of the best things about the committee leadership in this bar is their willingness to try something new. They did, and it worked.

The results so far indicate that 25 callback interview invitations were extended, 24 callback interviews were held and 23 offers were actually extended. I say “so far” because hiring personnel is a fluid process; the work of that one day will continue to change lives down the road. The IndyBar Diversity Job Fair is growing in both numbers and prestige.

Thank you to our sponsors, our employers and our interviewees. Thank you to Shelley Jackson and her hard working committee for taking point on this and running full speed. Thank you to Caren Chopp and IndyBar staff for being flexible and willing to do what is not always easy but is always innovative, because the goal here is to serve our members and advance this legal profession. The IndyBar’s continued good work in this area will change the stars of this profession down the road, and definitely for the better. For more information or to get engaged for next year, check out ibadiversityjobfair.com.

Now that this column is going to press and the government shutdown is over, it means that fists have unclenched, even if just a little, even if just for a while. Taking a page from my weary and dog-eared book on positive anticipation, this is a chance to refocus and recommit to working together … and for someone to write, “Everything I know about being a Congressman I learned in Kindergarten.” It’s a bit overdue.•

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. Falk said “At this point, at this minute, we’ll savor this particular victory.” “It certainly is a historic week on this front,” Cockrum said. “What a delight ... “Happy Independence Day to the women of the state of Indiana,” WOW. So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)

  2. congratulations on such balanced journalism; I also love how fetus disposal affects women's health protection, as covered by Roe...

  3. It truly sickens me every time a case is compared to mine. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld my convictions based on a finding of “hidden threats.” The term “hidden threat” never appeared until the opinion in Brewington so I had no way of knowing I was on trial for making hidden threats because Dearborn County Prosecutor F Aaron Negangard argued the First Amendment didn't protect lies. Negangard convened a grand jury to investigate me for making “over the top” and “unsubstantiated” statements about court officials, not hidden threats of violence. My indictments and convictions were so vague, the Indiana Court of Appeals made no mention of hidden threats when they upheld my convictions. Despite my public defender’s closing arguments stating he was unsure of exactly what conduct the prosecution deemed to be unlawful, Rush found that my lawyer’s trial strategy waived my right to the fundamental error of being tried for criminal defamation because my lawyer employed a strategy that attempted to take advantage of Negangard's unconstitutional criminal defamation prosecution against me. Rush’s opinion stated the prosecution argued two grounds for conviction one constitutional and one not, however the constitutional true threat “argument” consistently of only a blanket reading of subsection 1 of the intimidation statute during closing arguments, making it impossible to build any kind of defense. Of course intent was impossible for my attorney to argue because my attorney, Rush County Chief Public Defender Bryan Barrett refused to meet with me prior to trial. The record is littered with examples of where I made my concerns known to the trial judge that I didn’t know the charges against me, I did not have access to evidence, all while my public defender refused to meet with me. Special Judge Brian Hill, from Rush Superior Court, refused to address the issue with my public defender and marched me to trial without access to evidence or an understanding of the indictments against me. Just recently the Indiana Public Access Counselor found that four over four years Judge Hill has erroneously denied access to the grand jury audio from my case, the most likely reason being the transcription of the grand jury proceedings omitted portions of the official audio record. The bottom line is any intimidation case involves an action or statement that is debatably a threat of physical violence. There were no such statements in my case. The Indiana Supreme Court took partial statements I made over a period of 41 months and literally connected them with dots… to give the appearance that the statements were made within the same timeframe and then claimed a person similarly situated would find the statements intimidating while intentionally leaving out surrounding contextual factors. Even holding the similarly situated test was to be used in my case, the prosecution argued that the only intent of my public writings was to subject the “victims” to ridicule and hatred so a similarly situated jury instruction wouldn't even have applied in my case. Chief Justice Rush wrote the opinion while Rush continued to sit on a committee with one of the alleged victims in my trial and one of the judges in my divorce, just as she'd done for the previous 7+ years. All of this information, including the recent PAC opinion against the Dearborn Superior Court II can be found on my blog www.danbrewington.blogspot.com.

  4. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  5. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

ADVERTISEMENT