How do you add diversity?

[alfred russel]

I'm would bet that the same article could be written in the US.

My point was that your largest law firms serving the largest clients are going to have diversity initiatives, and there will be clients that expect them. One of those law firms showing up at NYU to recruit isn't going to be happy if all it gets are a bunch of white guys, when that means it is going to have to report to its clients in a few years that it is a 90% white male law firm.

A smaller firm--even one with more than 21 lawyers--may not have any incentive to care.

It would seem that it would *not* have been written in the US. You tell me that big firms care about diversity there, and I have no reason to doubt you.

The article states flat out that the biggest Canadian law firms *don't* collect "diversity" info and most don't even have a written policy (though in theory they are required to do so to act as a federal agent). Obviously, clients here don't require such info; if they did, the firms would of necessity collect it.

What we have here is a difference in the practice. For whatever reason, the "culture" of seriously requiring diversity reporting does not exist here in Canada.

The reason I was saying that it could be written in the US is the description of a large firm--it was looking at firms that did work for the government, not ones active in private sector, and the legal threshold for a large firm was 21 or more lawyers. I'm sure there are a lot of US firms with more than 21 lawyers without diversity policies in place. I'm actually probably wrong though, because many government entities here are not going to be as lax with diversity, so I would guess most 21+ lawyer firms that do business with the government would be more aware.

You don't need to prove to me how things are in Canada, I take your word for it. You are a better source than a journalist in any event.

[Rasputin]

As usual, I agree with Malthus and declare him the winner...overpriced baby stroller trophy to follow.

[Admiral Yi]

Merit is merit. Law review is an honor and should be about putting out a quality legal product not giving a leg up in the recruiting process to those who didn't get there on merit. It's a deception on those employers who recruit at your law school and look to Law Review as a validation of academic success and legal writing proficiency.

That's one view of meritocracy.  Another is that given equal brains and determination, the advantages of the partner's daughter means she will come out ahead of the coalminer's son.  Both views have their pluses and minuses.

[Rasputin]

Indeed. I am also surprised by Malthus's claim that he has never heard about diversity (and similar issues) being important - this seems to be like a constant thing being touted around for the last 2-3 years - along with pro bono work, commitment to human rights etc. that we have been using for several years now in pitches for clients.

In fact some clients (like government institutions or NGO organizations) have been asking for that kind of data when organizing a pitch.

Committment to human rights? Our clients would die laughing. 

I suspect it stongly depends on who you do work for. If you do work for some UN NGO, sure, their bread and butter is stuff like "diversity" and "human rights". That's the sort of thing they work with.

Work for someone who actually makes stuff, not so much.

Clients only care about one thing, the bottom line. Whether it's money at stake, or liberty interest, it's about the results and they could care less about ethnicity.

[Rasputin]

... I mean, it's like having the best guy at designing cars being put at the head of General Motors.

I'm not sure that's the best example.

[Malthus]

What is Canadian policy on school admissions for minorities and women?

Depends on the school. Here's U of T's policies:

http://www.law.utoronto.ca/prosp_stdn_content.asp?itemPath=3/6/15/1/0&contentId=347

The Faculty of Law seeks to identify and select a student body of diverse interests and backgrounds joined by a commitment to academic excellence and intellectual rigour and demonstrating unusual promise for distinguished performance at the law school, and, subsequently, in the legal profession and community.

The law school is enriched and Canadian society is benefited by a diverse student body made up of students from various ethnic, racial, cultural and socio-economic backgrounds, from different regions of Canada, as well as from a range of academic disciplines, careers, and community and extracurricular experiences.

The Admissions Committee, chaired by a faculty member and composed of the Assistant Dean, Students, faculty and third-year students, chooses those applicants whom it judges are likely to complete the program with the greatest intellectual return. The Faculty believes that the qualities of mind and personality necessary to satisfy its requirements are:

high intelligence,
sound judgment,
the capacity and motivation for demanding intellectual effort,
the capacity and motivation to engage in sophisticated legal reasoning, and
an understanding of and sensitivity to human interaction.
As evidence of these qualities, the Admissions Committee looks to a number of factors. These include:

academic achievement;
Law School Admission Test (LSAT) score;
nonacademic achievement;
the response to disadvantage due to adverse personal or socio-economic circumstances or to barriers faced by cultural (including racial or ethnic) or linguistic minorities;
motivation and involvement in academic and non-academic activities; and
the impact of temporary or permanent physical disabilities
The Faculty seeks a diverse, stimulating and highly motivated student body. Thus, the Admissions Committee may also give weight to

work experience,
graduate study,
outstanding accomplishment in a non-academic activity, and
other special circumstances brought to its attention
While the Admissions Committee gives greatest weight to an applicant's cumulative undergraduate academic record and LSAT score, these other factors may, in some cases, play an important role in the admissions decision. For this reason, applicants are strongly encouraged to bring to the attention of the Committee the above mentioned factors in their personal statements. Such factors will only be considered to the extent that they assist the applicant.

As to how much weight this gets - I dunno.

Note that the school has a special program for aboriginal students: it states that 25-30 out of 180 students will be aboriginal, which is wildly out of purportion to the population (13-17% of the class vs. about 3.8% of the pop. of Canada).

The policy is to admit aboriginals if they are breathing, evidently:

The Faculty believes that Aboriginal people including those of Indian, Métis and Inuit heritage represent unique groups in Canada deserving special recognition in admissions policy. We believe that the admissions policy is an appropriate means of attempting to increase access to legal services for Aboriginal people and to redress historic systemic discrimination against them in Canadian society. The Faculty is concerned that Aboriginal people do not have substantial representation among the ranks of the Canadian legal profession. The Faculty also believes that the ethnic and cultural backgrounds of these students provide valuable dimensions which enhance the quality of legal education.

The Faculty therefore welcomes applications from Aboriginal people and seeks to enhance their participation in legal education and legal practice. If the Admissions Committee believes that an Aboriginal applicant can be successful in our program, he or she will be admitted. In appropriate cases, admission may be conditional on successful performance in the Program of Legal Studies for Native People offered each summer at the University of Saskatchewan. This program is designed as a preparation for formal studies at a Canadian law school. Application forms and further information are available from:

Program of Legal Studies for Native People
University of Saskatchewan
15 Campus Drive
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5A6
Tel: (306) 966-6189
Fax: (306) 966-6207
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.usask.ca/nativelaw

Usually, there are approximately 25 to 30 Aboriginal students enrolled in the J.D. program.

[Rasputin]

I went for the jew lawyer.

Good choice.

[Capetan Mihali]

... I mean, it's like having the best guy at designing cars being put at the head of General Motors.

I'm not sure that's the best example.

  You've got a lot of nerve criticizing one of Marti's analogies on this board, mister.

[Rasputin]

Merit is merit. Law review is an honor and should be about putting out a quality legal product not giving a leg up in the recruiting process to those who didn't get there on merit. It's a deception on those employers who recruit at your law school and look to Law Review as a validation of academic success and legal writing proficiency.

That's one view of meritocracy.  Another is that given equal brains and determination, the advantages of the partner's daughter means she will come out ahead of the coalminer's son.  Both views have their pluses and minuses.

Law Reviews traditionally merit select in a blind environment (top 10% of the class after year one with a handful selected as write ons (anonymous papers selected by faculty and law review member committee). Thus your premise is false. Given equal brains and determination whichever one wrote the better paper or scored the highest on blindly graded exams over their first year gets onto law review.

[Rasputin]

... I mean, it's like having the best guy at designing cars being put at the head of General Motors.

I'm not sure that's the best example.

  You've got a lot of nerve criticizing one of Marti's analogies on this board, mister.

I can understand how a gay communist might look to an example of a spectacular failure of a private business that had to be nationalized for guidance, but I just cannot help but think that if a few more car guys had been running the show at GM instead of professional managers and bean counters, GM might have survived.

[Admiral Yi]

Law Reviews traditionally merit select in a blind environment (top 10% of the class after year one with a handful selected as write ons (anonymous papers selected by faculty and law review member committee). Thus your premise is false. Given equal brains and determination whichever one wrote the better paper or scored the highest on blindly graded exams over their first year gets onto law review.

Whoever had better brains and determination at the moment the articles were written and the first year grades awarded.  Which is a function of, among many other things, the quality of schools attended, the intellectual culture in the home, summer jobs, internships, travel, etc. etc.

[Malthus]

Whoever had better brains and determination at the moment the articles were written and the first year grades awarded.  Which is a function of, among many other things, the quality of schools attended, the intellectual culture in the home, summer jobs, internships, travel, etc. etc.

I totally agree. People from "standard" upper middle class upbringings have a lot of unearned advantages.

My point is that the eventual end user of legal services wants as many "advantages" as they can get, and doesn't care whether they are fairly earned or not: their money or freedom is on the line.

Edit: in some cases, people from such upbringings have unearned *disadvantages* as well - spoiled, lack work ethic, etc.

[Rasputin]

Whoever had better brains and determination at the moment the articles were written and the first year grades awarded.  Which is a function of, among many other things, the quality of schools attended, the intellectual culture in the home, summer jobs, internships, travel, etc. etc.

I totally agree. People from "standard" upper middle class upbringings have a lot of unearned advantages.

My point is that the eventual end user of legal services wants as many "advantages" as they can get, and doesn't care whether they are fairly earned or not: their money or freedom is on the line.

Edit: in some cases, people from such upbringings have unearned *disadvantages* as well - spoiled, lack work ethic, etc.

I revoke your victory and am returning your trophy.

[Malthus]

I revoke your victory and am returning your trophy.

I want that stroller back. 

Anyway, don't see what's controversial about what I said. certainly, going to good schools and having lots of stimulation as a kid is an advantage - my point is that this is no reason to in effect attempt to manipulate the balance in the other direction.

[Faeelin]

So, at Law Review Orientation, the Diversity Committee gave us a discussion of what they do, and how. Essentially they pick X number of students in the top half of the class for Law Review based on race, gender, socioeconomic background, nationality, academic background, sexual orientation, etc. etc.

Wow; this law review must suck. Picking editors and subciters based upon visual ethnicity from people ranked as low as the top half of their class, instead of merit selection?

I have bad news for you about the nation's top law schools.