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. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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)

  5. "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.

ADVERTISEMENT