Quote:
Originally posted by Klaatu B. Nikto
C2ed, I do agree with you. Thankfully we're long past the days when little armies of women lawyers (and other professionals) marched to work dressed in uniforms of manlike suits, Di-Fi scarf ties, and tennis shoes (to be exchanged for high heels once their offices were reached). While women no longer need to wear the white male lawyer's uniform, I suspect that, in order to survive and succeed, they must still adopt (at least a convincing facade of) most of the traditional white male values, pov, and modes of thinking and behaving. And, quite likely, lawyers of color (men and women) must do the same.
....
So, in this and many other instances, I'm left wondering what is the point of striving for that which results in only skin deep diversity in a law firm? If women and people of color must alter and/or mask that which is different about them to be allowed to enter and remain in the white male club (class), where's the value of diversity? Of course, it's nice to see women and people of color get more of a shot at the big bucks. And maybe that's all it is. (Ah Bartleby, ah humanity.)
|
Now, we've progressed to the days where "little armies of women lawyers march to work" dressed in Gap khakis and blue button-down shirts. (Except, of course, litigators.) The only reason why women are dressing differently is that everyone dresses differently now. I don't think that looking at wardrobe (while it might be great sport on the FB) really indicates much about how far women or minorities have "progressed" in the profession. I think the change in wardrobe may have something to do with the fact that men (if you think the men on the FB are in any way indicative of what real men lawyers think) absolutely hate wearing ties and a bunch of SF/SV firms thought it would be cool to dress down to look more like their clients. And now there is a backlash in many firms to go back to the old ways of dress, so there you are.
And altering what is different about oneself (class) often happens in the context of education. After we've been through seven years of schooling, we are bound to speak differently, think about things we hadn't thought about before schooling and so on. In short, college is often the place where young adults learn how to behave like upper middle class folks, regardless of where they came from. College has become, for many, more about where you are going and less about where you came from. College is sometimes seen as a ticket out of the home town.
Unless you are already upper middle class, college can change you so that you can't go back, even if you thought you wanted to when you started. Just like there are social pressures in college to behave like those you believe to be successful, there are social pressures back home to reject those who went away to college because they were "too good" or "too smart" for the neighborhood. Going away to college can be seen as a betrayal of the home town. To those of us who were working class, there is an entire range of response to education and to an aspiration to become part of that "army" of professionals. I know of several lawyers in my high school graduating class and none of them went back to the old home town. All of us feel quite estranged.
Whether or not it was worth it remains to be seen. And class diversity is not necessarily eliminated by becoming a professional. There was an op-ed piece not so long ago (in the American Lawyer? I can't remember) written by a lawyer who noted that even when people earn roughly the same amounts of money, there are other factors which do not eliminate class difference among professionals. Who gets an inheritance? Who must spend earnings to take care of parents and other family members? Who gets assistance in buying a first home or in starting a practice? Who gets help in paying for college and/or law school? Affirmative action aside, these things continue to matter. Unfortunately, professionals who deal with issues such as these are seen as irresponsible in managing their financial affairs by those who do not have to contend with such issues, which further reinforces stereotypes.
Further, I do NOT think that women and people of color are necessarily getting much more of "a shot at the big bucks". I remember very clearly hearing students and professors at my law school professing loudly "not everyone has the right to attend [insert name of law school here]." The point is, not everyone has access to the credentials that the big-bucks firms require as a ticket to entry. The point is, we all know some really, really dumb people who had the "right" to attend [insert name of law school here]. And we all know some racist, sexist and classist individuals who would like to make sure that certain of us understand that we do not have the "right" to attend [insert name of law school here].
So, unless and until we can come up with a way to make access to credentials more fair, those of us who had access have to bite our tongues from time to time and learn to get along and extend a hand to people who are deserving of a "shot at the big bucks" by, first, recognizing our own bias and, next, working damned hard to eliminate it.
AM(rant, yes. solutions, no)M
