Did Diversity Month lack diversity?
What does diversity really mean here at BCLS? Reflecting upon our Diversity Month, one would think that ‘diversity’ is almost exclusively limited to issues of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and occasionally religion. Here is a brief summary of some of the events that took place during Diversity Month:
-March 4: lecture on ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell.’
-March 11: “Women’s day celebration.”
-March 26: “ A short-series of roundtable discussions on sexual orientation, women and women of color, and race in the law and legal profession.”
-March 27: “ Delicious food from across the world” & “domestic violence issues within the LGBT community.” (Two separate events.)
-March 31: “A short-series of roundtable discussions on sexual orientation, women and women of color, and race in the law and legal profession”
The events of March 27 and 31 in particular—the only ones identified in this website’s calendar as explicitly “in recognition of Diversity Month”—only included sexual orientation, gender, and race as aspects of diversity.
This is troubling because diversity is much broader than those three categories. Diversity encompasses issues of race, gender, and sexual orientation to be sure, but it also includes (among other issues) religion, political beliefs, and, most neglected of all, socio-economic class. And so, while I applaud those who helped organize the events in recognition of issues of gender, race, and sexual orientation in the law, my applause is tempered by the fact that the overwhelming majority of the events limited ‘diversity’ solely to those issues. The problem with this is that it shortchanges other aspects of diversity while simultaneously reinforcing the (incorrect) perception among people that diversity is limited to issues gender, race, and sexual orientation.
One particular issue I would like to address is that socio-economic class was not presented—and as far as I am aware has never been presented at this school—as an aspect of diversity worthy of particular attention by itself. Why is this so? We reflect at great length about issues of race, gender, and sexual orientation independently—why not do the same for socio-economic class?
It is undeniable that we do indeed have socio-economic class diversity at BCLS. There are students in my class who can afford to spend five days in London during the semester, others who have attended private school their entire lives, others who had to work themselves to help their parents pay for college, and still others whose parents are struggling paycheck-to-paycheck. There are those in my class who drive to school in luxury cars and others who have no choice but to be on work-study. Why do we not acknowledge this reality, discuss and reflect upon this aspect of diversity at school?
It is arguable that one’s socio-economic class limits one’s options in life more than any other factor. Two university professors, in a 2006 report, state that “income-related gaps both in access to and success in higher education are large and growing. In top-tier colleges and universities, almost three-quarters of the entering class is from the highest socioeconomic quartile.” [1] Another report from the same year finds that “there is substantial intergenerational persistence in family wealth.” [2] Indeed, The Economist culled together much of the research on the issue and concluded that Horatio Alger rags-to-riches stories in America are largely the product of deluded fantasy, stating:
“The past couple of decades have seen a huge increase in inequality in America. The Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think-tank, argues that between 1979 and 2000 the real income of households in the lowest fifth (the bottom 20% of earners) grew by 6.4%, while that of households in the top fifth grew by 70%. The family income of the top 1% grew by 184%—and that of the top 0.1% or 0.01% grew even faster. Back in 1979 the average income of the top 1% was 133 times that of the bottom 20%; by 2000 the income of the top 1% had risen to 189 times that of the bottom fifth…..But the new rise in inequality does not seem to have come with a commensurate rise in mobility. There may even have been a fall.” [3]
I think that we should engage these issues, not ignore them. It is particularly important to do this in law school and in a setting where many students want to work for large law firms, which generally serve the wealthiest members of society. This is in marked contrast to those who wish to engage in public-interest work, which generally serves among the poorest members of society. Indeed, many students have told me that they don’t really want to work long hours at a law firm upon graduation. Rather, they see working for a law firm as an economic necessity given the amount of loans they are taking to attend law school in the first place. Their economic concern is well-placed, particularly given the US recession, which the International Monetary Fund itself recently announced may cause “the largest financial shock since the Great Depression” based on their calculation of a 25% chance of a full-blown global recession over the next twelve months. [4]
Given the primacy—and patent reality—of how socio-economic class affects our lives, why is the issue not given the attention it so clearly deserves?
The narrow vision of diversity presented by Diversity Month is not unique to BCLS. Indeed, when EagleI reported on law firm ‘diversity’ on 12 October 2007 the diversity statistics presented at the time were limited to “number of minorities and women in each of the major market.” [5] Those statistics made no mention of socio-economic diversity among first-year associates. The so-called ‘Takei Report’ at BC was expressly geared toward the “issue of racial and ethnic diversity on BCLR and its sister journals.” [6] There was no attempt to ascertain the socio-economic diversity of the journals on campus. BC Law’s own website on diversity at the school features links to student groups on campus, the overwhelming majority of which are of racial and ethnic diversity. [7] One prominent law firm begins its page on diversity by noting that their attorneys “represent[] 85 nationalities and speak[] more than 60 languages.” [8] All of this serves to reinforce the (false) perception that diversity is limited to issues of race, ethnicity, and gender.
This is disappointing and misleading.
There have been progressive steps to broaden society’s conception of diversity, however. Yale University, for example, has a special page on its admission website dedicated to “Yale & Socioeconomic diversity,” explicitly recognizing this aspect of diversity as something of value. [9] We here at BCLS can—and should—do our part to broaden the narrow scope of diversity presented so far in discussions and events at the school. While issues of race, ethnicity, and gender are certainly important and should be discussed, they should not come at the expense of other aspects of diversity that urgently need to be addressed. We should actively engage these additional aspects of diversity, chief among them socio-economic class and its relation to the legal profession.
[1] Haveman, Robert & Smeeding, Timothy. “The Role of higher education in social mobility,” The Future of Children, Vol. 16, No. 2, October 2006, p. 125 (emphasis added)
[2] Beller, Emily & Hout, Michael. “Intergenerational Social mobility: the United States in a comparative perspective,” The Future of Children, Vol. 16., No. 2, October 2006, p. 26 (emphasis added)
[3] “Meritocracy in America,” The Economist, 29 December 2004 (emphasis added)
[4] Stewart, Heather. “IMF says US crisis is ‘largest financial shock since Great Depression,’ The Guardian, 9 April 2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/apr/09/useconomy.subprimecrisis
[5] http://www.eagleionline.com/news/2007/10/12/law-firm-diversity-rankings.html
[6] http://www.eagleionline.com/news/2007/4/19/law-review-members-address-diversity.html (emphasis added)
[7] http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/about/diversity.html
[8] http://www.whitecase.com/diversity/
[9] http://www.yale.edu/admit/freshmen/financial_aid/diversity.html
Dmoe
5 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (5)
Certainly, one would not want to enforce an equality of outcome at the expense of an equality of opportunity. That is to say, people must be judged by the merit of their work. Socio-economic status is directly relevant to the issue of need-based scholarships, more so than admissions.
That said, the more fundamental problem is the declining value of the $ and thus the increasing disincentive to save. This issue should be addressed by the Congress.
A free society, with a strong currency, will have members not only willing, but ABLE to work in public interest. Dmoe is right to note the burden of loan repayment and its negative ramifications for public interest work. Perhaps additional two-prong need and practice-area scholarships could be targeted to this concern.
I do agree this is a key measure of diversity... in many ways the most serious diversity issue of our time. An extended republic's stability is tied directly to a strong middle class and social mobility across classes.
The options are to:
1)Recognize certain groups only
2)Try to accommodate everybody
3)Forget the whole thing
I like to eat the chocolates I get regardless of whether they have menorahs or Christmas trees on them. They all taste the same to me.
Thanks for bringing attention to this important issue.
I do think your criticism is a little more strident than the situations demands. The committee that coordinates the diversity month are always looking for more events. I am sure if you put together an event about socio-economic status for next year you would find ample support. I think most of the events are student initiated.
Also, the BC Community Economic Development Law Group (CED) did address this issue two years ago. We focused on the obstacles that members of the Cambodian community in Lowell face and the economic development that is occurring there. Our plan at the time was to focus on a different greater Boston community every year. Since communities often organize around ethnic lines, ethnicity is a component of the discussion. However, I believe this adds to the discussion rather than distracting from it, because ethnicity and race, unfortunately, are still closely tied to wealth and privilege.
Thanks for the comment. I would very much be interested in organizing an event about socio-economic class and the law next year. Also, thanks for informing me of the event BC had two years ago; I was unaware of that. As I said in my piece, I do agree that race, ethnicity, and gender should be issues that must be discussed as part of Diversity Month, I just would like to see more attention devoted to socio-economic class is all.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120934372123648583.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
The ABA's 'Diversity' Diktat
By GAIL HERIOT
April 28, 2008; Page A19
If you have ever wondered why colleges and universities seem to march in lockstep on controversial issues like affirmative action, here is one reason: Overly politicized accrediting agencies often demand it.
Given that federal funding hinges on accreditation, schools are not in a position to argue. That is precisely why the U.S. Department of Education, which gives accreditors their authority, must sometimes take corrective action. George Mason University's law school in northern Virginia is an example of why corrective action is needed now.
[The ABA's 'Diversity' Diktat]
GMU's problems began in early 2000, when the American Bar Association visited the law school, which has a somewhat conservative reputation, for its routine reaccreditation inspection. The site evaluation team was unhappy that only 6.5% of entering students were minorities.
Outreach was not the problem; even the site evaluation report (obtained as a result of Freedom of Information Act requests) conceded that GMU had a "very active effort to recruit minorities." But the school, the report noted, had been "unwilling to engage in any significant preferential affirmative action admissions program." Since most law schools were willing to admit minority students with dramatically lower entering academic credentials, GMU was at a recruitment disadvantage. The site evaluation report noted its "serious concerns" with the school's policy.
Over the next few years, the ABA repeatedly refused to renew GMU's accreditation, citing its lack of a "significant preferential affirmative action program" and supposed lack of diversity. The school stepped up its already-extensive recruitment efforts, but was forced to back away from its opposition to significant preferential treatment. It was thus able to raise the proportion of minorities in its entering class to 10.98% in 2001 and 16.16% in 2002.
Not good enough. In 2003, the ABA summoned the university's president and law school dean to appear before it personally, threatening to revoke the institution's accreditation.
GMU responded by further lowering minority admissions standards. It also increased spending on outreach, appointed an assistant dean to serve as minority coordinator, and established an outside "Minority Recruitment Council." As a result, 17.3% of its entering students were minority members in 2003 and 19% in 2004.
Not good enough. "Of the 99 minority students in 2003," the ABA complained, "only 23 were African American; of 111 minority students in 2004, the number of African Americans held at 23." It didn't seem to matter that 63 African Americans had been offered admission, or that many students admitted with lower academic credentials would end up incurring heavy debt but never graduate and pass the bar.
GMU's case is not unique. In a study conducted several years ago, 31% of law school respondents admitted to political scientists Susan Welch and John Gruhl that they "felt pressure" "to take race into account in making admissions decisions" from "accreditation agencies." Several schools, like GMU, have been put through the diversity wringer.
The GMU law school was finally notified of its reaccreditation in 2006, after six long and unnecessary years of abuse – just in time for the next round in the seven-year reaccreditation process. Even then, the ABA could not resist an ominous warning that it would pay "particular attention" to GMU's diversity efforts in the upcoming cycle.
Perhaps the ABA believes that the Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger allows it to force law schools into affirmative action orthodoxy. If so, it is mistaken. In Grutter, a razor-thin majority held that the Constitution permitted the University of Michigan Law School to discriminate against whites and Asians to obtain a racially diverse class.
That decision, however, was rooted in the notion that "universities occupy a special niche in our constitutional tradition." In the majority's view, universities are not subject to the same equal-protection standards as other governmental entities; they are instead entitled to deference in their academic judgments. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor put it, "'[t]he freedom of a university to make its own judgments . . . includes the selection of its student body.'"
Whatever the merit of this reasoning, the ABA is not a university, and its Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar is not entitled to academic deference.
As the Education Department's designated law school accreditor, the council decides whether a law school's students will be eligible for federal loans. As state accreditor, it decides which schools' graduates may sit for the bar examination. It is thus part of the governing bureaucracy – the kind of institution academic freedom is supposed to protect universities from.
That's why the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights recommended that the ABA leave issues of diversity to individual law schools. If academic freedom confers upon law schools the right to discriminate, it must also confer a right not to discriminate. Unfortunately, the ABA has instead put into effect more stringent diversity standards.
So now it is up to the Education Department to bring the ABA to heel. In 2006, when the ABA's status as accreditor was itself up for renewal, opposition came from many quarters on many grounds. Surprised, the Education Department put the ABA on a short leash, giving it only 18 months before its next renewal, and requiring it to submit its official correspondence for inspection.
It is now time to find permanent solutions to the problems of ABA abuse. Foremost on the Education Department's list should be to get the ABA out of the diversity business. It is one thing for a law school to adopt its own discriminatory admissions policies; it is quite another to force it to do so on pain of losing federal funding.
Ms. Heriot is a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and a law professor at the University of San Diego. In the 1990s, she was employed at GMU for one year, but had no involvement with the issues in this commentary.