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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. November, 2014, I was charged with OWI/Endangering a person. I was not given a Breathalyzer test and the arresting officer did not believe that alcohol was in any way involved. I was self-overmedicated with prescription medications. I was taken to local hospital for blood draw to be sent to State Tox Lab. My attorney gave me a cookie-cutter plea which amounts to an ALCOHOL-related charge. Totally unacceptable!! HOW can I get my TOX report from the state lab???

  2. My mother got temporary guardianship of my children in 2012. my husband and I got divorced 2015 the judge ordered me to have full custody of all my children. Does this mean the temporary guardianship is over? I'm confused because my divorce papers say I have custody and he gets visits and i get to claim the kids every year on my taxes. So just wondered since I have in black and white that I have custody if I can go get my kids from my moms and not go to jail?

  3. Someone off their meds? C'mon John, it is called the politics of Empire. Get with the program, will ya? How can we build one world under secularist ideals without breaking a few eggs? Of course, once it is fully built, is the American public who will feel the deadly grip of the velvet glove. One cannot lay down with dogs without getting fleas. The cup of wrath is nearly full, John Smith, nearly full. Oops, there I go, almost sounding as alarmist as Smith. Guess he and I both need to listen to this again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRnQ65J02XA

  4. Charles Rice was one of the greatest of the so-called great generation in America. I was privileged to count him among my mentors. He stood firm for Christ and Christ's Church in the Spirit of Thomas More, always quick to be a good servant of the King, but always God's first. I had Rice come speak to 700 in Fort Wayne as Obama took office. Rice was concerned that this rise of aggressive secularism and militant Islam were dual threats to Christendom,er, please forgive, I meant to say "Western Civilization". RIP Charlie. You are safe at home.

  5. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

ADVERTISEMENT