I am woman, hear me whine

There’s an article in today’s New York Times exposing (again) one of the problems with affirmative action — it elevates nice, ordinary people to situations where they’re bound to fail. This time the focus is on the nation’s top law firms, where African-Americans consistently fail to last:

Thanks to vigorous recruiting and pressure from corporate clients, black lawyers are well represented now among new associates at the nation’s most prestigious law firms. But they remain far less likely to stay at the firms or to make partner than their white counterparts.

A recent study says grades help explain the gap. To ensure diversity among new associates, the study found, elite law firms hire minority lawyers with, on average, much lower grades than white ones. That may, the study says, set them up to fail.

The study, of course, is being vigorously challenged. You can read about the whole debate here.

I’m actually inclined to agree with the study’s conclusion based upon my own years at big law firms. So many of these firms hired minorities solely so that they could boast about their progressive ethnic balance. This meant that they weren’t always so picky about their new hires’ qualifications. These kids were window dressing, and the firms never really committed to having them for the long haul.

However, based on my twenty-years out-of-date information, let me throw out one more reason that minorities aren’t lasting at the big firms — their sense of entitlement prevents them from working as hard as they ought to. In this regard, I speak from personal experience. I was one of a big crew of women and minorities that a large urban law firm hired so that it could boast about its diversity, something that was becoming very important in the legal marketplace. All of us were academically qualified and could have been hired without regard to our sex or race, but we still felt very special — we were the vanguard of the new lawyer. Away with the “white boys,” and in with the women, the Hispanics and the African Americans.

Of course, because we were so special, we felt pretty sure we were entitled to special treatment. It just wasn’t fair to make us work so hard, and why in the world weren’t they holding our hands constantly? Those ugly, old, white men seemed to expect us to be self-propelled, aggressive, and to stand on our own two feet. We were women and minorities, though, and we weren’t about to do that. We wanted mentoring! As it happened, mentoring wasn’t going to be in the cards at that old-line firm, with the result that those of us who didn’t leave under our own steam were swiftly “downsized.”

At the time, I was absolutely certain that all blame for the debacle that was my incoming year of associates was the firm’s fault. I’m less and less sure now. The fact is, while the firm made no effort to accommodate the new culture of incoming lawyers they’d hired, we made no effort to fit into the firm’s culture. In our youthful arrogance, and cloaked in our victim status, we believed that it was the firm that should completely change its decades old culture in our favor. Looking back, I’m quite sure that, if I hadn’t been so caught up in my special status as a touchy-feely, sensitive, needy woman lawyer, I would have been better equipped to handle the hard work and hard knocks that come with a big firm. A big firm is a dynamo, and nothing is going to shape it into the type of small, personal firm with which I routinely work now. That’s simply not the nature of the big firm beast.

(By the way, my memory says that Asian men had no problem adjusting to big firm culture. While Asian women had bought into feeling just as needy as Caucasian women, Asian men were simply hard workers who eschewed victim status.)

In any event, I realize that my observations are outdated and that there is a small number of big firms out there that has been able to handle the new breed of non-white, non-male attorney. For the most part, though, I do wonder whether a large part of the problem doesn’t lie with the various law firms’ arrogance, but with the arrogant sense of entitlement that characterizes the new breed of female and/or minority lawyer.

del.icio.us | digg it

Be Sociable, Share!
  • JJ

    I don’t think your observations are outdated – I don’t think simple logic is ever outdated – but they’re pretty sure to be unpopular!

    “The study of course is being vigorously challenged.”

    Of course.

  • http://ruminationsroom.wordpress.com/ Don Quixote

    I tend to think the porblem is affirmative action, which sets folks up to fail. Blacks who seek to join the legal profession are, at college and law school, admitted at higher rates with lower scores because affirmative action insists on it. Having been favored by affirmative action, many are shocked to encounter the bar exam which, because it cares not a whit about the exam taker’s skin color, does not accord them the same privileges. The results are inevitable, as shown by the following bar passage taken from the California Bar Association’s own web site:

    Bar pass rate by race

    February, 2006

    White 61.0%
    Black 28.1%
    Hisp. 33.0%
    Asian 45.6%
    Other 51.9%

    Or, go back to July, 2006:

    White 69.1%
    Black 33.8%
    Hisp. 48.8%
    Asian 61.7%
    Other 53.3%

    Pick any time-frame you want and the blacks pass at far lower rates than the other groups on the first test on which they are not given preference. We use affirmative action to place people in positions where they can reasonably be expected to fail and, no surprise, many of them do fail. It stands to reason that, even among those who do pass the test, the blacks do not score as well, on average, as the other groups and that they will not do as well in law firms and in any other situation that objectively measures performance. Keep in mind that affirmative action kicks in again to get blacks hired to positions above their qualifications, but their actual performance tends to be judged objectively (though, perhaps, with some affirmative action even there). Just as affirmative action puts blakcs in a position to fail the bar exam, it also puts them in a position to fail to make partner or otherwise succeed where they are hired.

    In our PC world one should hasten to add that this does not necessarily have anything to do with race, per se, but may well be caused by inferior grounding in the fundamentals because of inferior K-12 schooling and less supportive home enviroments. This doesn’t say anything, pro or con, about the innate abilities of the races, but it says a lot about how ill-advised it is to use affirmative action to put people in a position to fail.

    By the way, the gender breakdowns show women doing at least as well (or slightly better) than men.

    Men 53.0 & 63.6
    Women 54.1 & 63.9

  • Pingback: Webloggin - Blog Archive » I am woman, hear me whine()

  • kevin

    about NOW’s membership in decline.

    Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

  • http://thoughtyoudneverask.blogspot.com/ Zabrina

    Don Quixote, you are right. Thomas Sowell has written time and time again about how affirmative action programs actually verifiably hurt the people they are supposed to help:

    http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2637

  • http://noncompos.blogspot.com Alex

    Not to mention they also hurt the people who had good grades, and would have made it in the firm, had they only been hired.

  • Pingback: Women in the workplace « Bookworm Room()