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. "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.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT