The ongoing discussion over the law firm partner who decided to reject all job applicants with Federalist Society membership raises the question of how common discrimination against Federalist Society members really is in the law firm world. The only real way to get a definitive answer to this question is to look at systematic data comparing the success of job applicants who reveal their Fed Soc membership with that of applicants who have similar credentials, but are not Fed Soc members (or conceal their membership). In the absence of such data, all we have are conjectures. Here are mine:
Overall, I doubt that Fed Soc membership is a big obstacle to getting law firm jobs. This is likely to be so for three reasons. First, law firm partners are usually focused on the bottom line. If they reject good conservative or libertarian applicants in favor of inferior liberal ones, their pocketbook is likely to suffer. Anyone who has ever worked at a big law firm knows that partners hate it when that happens. Those few who are indifferent to profits are unlikely to stay in business for long. Second, surprising as it may be, many practicing lawyers simply don’t care about politics as intensely as academics and political activists do. They may have political opinions, but those opinions aren’t a major part of their lives. For such people, hiring associates who disagree with their political views isn’t a big deal because they don’t care about politics that much in the first place. Of course this isn’t true at all law firms. There are some that are intensely political, especially here in Washington. But it’s true of enough of them that the applicant with unpopular political views will still have a wide range of firms to choose from.
It’s also worth noting that there are some firms where Federalist Society membership might actually be an advantage. After all, many partners at prominent law firms are Fed Soc members themselves. These people are unlikely to prefer weak Fed Soc applicants to clearly superior liberal ones; after all, they care about the bottom line too. But Fed Soc membership could sway them in a close case. More generally, there are lots of conservative and libertarian practicing lawyers, enough that those firms where liberals predominate are likely to be roughly offset by the ones where right of center types hold sway.
When I was in law school, I put the Federalist Society on my law firm resume, as did many of my classmates who were also members. It didn’t seem to hurt. As a second year, I got a job as a summer associate at an overwhelmingly liberal New York law firm where no one seemed to care much about my politics one way or the other. The only time ideology came up in a negative way during numerous interviews with big-name New York and DC firms was when a conservative partner grilled me about the fact that I had been an RA for liberal Yale professor Bruce Ackerman (an exchange that didn’t end up costing me the offer, though I did get rejected on the grounds that the hiring committee thought I was too likely to become an academic, as also happened at several other firms).
By contrast, both liberal and conservative law professors warned me not to put the Fed Soc on my CV for the academic job market, where ideological discrimination is likely to be greater because academia is far more ideologically homogenous than the law firm world, (see also here), there is little or no equivalent to the constraint imposed by the profit motive, and academics tend to care about politics far more than practicing lawyers do.
These personal experiences aren’t necessarily typical. Only systematic data can really settle the issue. But they are similar to those of other Fed Soc members I know in the law firm and academic worlds (and I know a great many in both). It’s not unusual for people to put Fed Soc membership on their law firm resumes, while the conventional wisdom is strongly against doing so on academic CVs.
Even if I am correct as a general matter, there are certainly likely to be individual cases of ideological discrimination against Fed Soc members in law firm hiring. But I doubt that the private sector job prospects of law school grads who are Fed Soc members are systematically worse than the chances of those who are not.
GainesvilleGuest says:
Your post doesn’t touch on the area of law clerk hiring. Would that fall somewhere between the law firm experience (little to no effect) and the academic experience (substantial effect)?
Based on my experience, it definitely had both positive and negative effects, depending on the judge. I’m near the top of my class and have solid academic credentials. I made the decision to leave the Federalist Society on my resume for all of my clerkship applications. I sent out many applications for appellate clerkships and some district. I got several interviews with judges known to be very conservative, and not a single interview with any judge who did not have a reputation for being very conservative. GainesvilleGuest(Quote)
Ilya Somin says:
Your post doesn’t touch on the area of law clerk hiring. Would that fall somewhere between the law firm experience (little to no effect) and the academic experience (substantial effect)?
I agree with you with respect to clerkship hiring. Fed Soc is a big plus for most conservative judges and a big minus for most liberal ones. Ilya Somin(Quote)
Steve says:
I’ve always seen the primary purpose of Federalist Society membership as job-seeking. If it were viewed as a net minus in seeking private-sector jobs, not only do I think people would gradually realize not to put it on their resume, but the organization would most likely die on the vine.
In the law firm context I think it functions much like a fraternity membership, in that there’s potential upside but very little downside. In the clerkship context I feel like people who list it when they apply to a liberal judge are failing an IQ test. Steve(Quote)
GainesvilleGuest says:
“In the clerkship context I feel like people who list it when they apply to a liberal judge are failing an IQ test.”
That assumes you’d like to work for a judge who would refuse to hire someone based on Federalist Society membership. Judges, of course, have every right to hire clerks that agree with their judicial philosophy. However, potential clerks can choose not to work for judges who make such a decision. GainesvilleGuest(Quote)
Hadur says:
I’m no hiring partner, but if I saw “Federalist Society” on a resume, I would assume that the person might be a flight risk for either academia or public interest law (i.e., they might run off to help Gura fight gun control laws or something).
Though this risk is probably even greater for ACS members. Making money by serving big corporations is a conservative value, but certainly not a liberal one! Hadur(Quote)
Hadur says:
Also:
As an unsuccessful clerkship applicant this year, I had a few interviews with judges known to be conservative, and wanted to signal to them during the interview that I was also a conservative, but failed to do so. The opportunity/entry point just never came up. Perhaps if I had joined the Federalist Society they would have gotten the message. (And probably still passed me over for people with higher grades, but still!) Hadur(Quote)
Orin Kerr says:
Steve writes:
I don’t think I have ever heard anyone suggest that the primary purpose of Federalist Society membership is getting a private sector job. Granted, some students become active because they want a political job, or a government job in a future conservative administration. But joining the Federalist Society to help your chances at private sector jobs would be counterproductive.
Gainesville Guest brings up an important point: Federalist Society membership can be very helpful in getting a clerkship with a conservative judge. Here the numbers work very much to a right-of-center law student’s advantage: The ratio of conservative judges to liberal judges is much higher than the ratio of conservative potential applicants to liberal potential applicants. The result is that it’s usually easier for a conservative applicant to score a great clerkship than an equivalently credentialed liberal applicant. (On the other hand, at least in academia, a great clerkship for a liberal judge is much more helpful to a candidate than a great clerkship for a conservative one.) That’s my sense, at least. Orin Kerr(Quote)
Orin Kerr says:
Hadur,
Try saying, “there was this great post at the Volokh Conspiracy...”
;-) Orin Kerr(Quote)
Dominic says:
The one element missing from this question is the fact that firms–or at least the diligent ones–could likely just do a thorough google search to glean your political leanings. This includes membership in Federalist Society or any other organizations that may be an indicator of your political leanings. I tend to agree with Ilya that the bottom line at firms is profitability and they will tend to care much more about that rather than your politics. For the discerning firm, wouldn’t they also be able to determine to a certain extent your politics by examining clerkships, academic papers, academic references? Most people tend to associate themselves with people of the same political ilk. Dominic(Quote)
JustAStudent says:
The president of the Fed. Soc. on our campus hid his membership when running for student bar president.
He was subsequently outed on an NLG mailing list, which led to suspect threatened student bar sanctions against the whistleblowers.
Approval? Disapproval?
(Can provide documentation upon request.) JustAStudent(Quote)
Helen says:
Hadur says:
“Though this risk is probably even greater for ACS members.”
I’m a chemical engineer and a member of the original ACS, the American Chemical Society, which has used the acronym since 1876 and has over 150,000 members worldwide. We’re actively involved in fostering education in chemistry and chemical engineering at all levels and in advancing the profession. And we have many members who are attorneys, often patent attorneys in biotechnology area or environmental attorneys.
We’d really like to see these upstarts at the American Constitution Society come up with a new acronym. Helen(Quote)
Hume says:
Ilya,
One thing missing from your post is the reality of the interviewing process at “big law.” Most candidates for a summer associate position are interchangeable and most decisions come down to whether the candidate is the right “fit” for the firm. The process is somewhat arbitrary and personal characteristics (e.g., political affiliation?) might play a deciding factor in whether one receives an offer. Hume(Quote)
Sandy MacHoots says:
If your politics are important to you, put them on your resume. You don’t want to spend 7 years working at a place where you’ve got to hide them to keep your job. Many big firms like to have lots of folks active on both ends of the political spectrum, so they’ve got connections no matter who’s in power.
The exception is academia, where your job prospects will be considerably harmed by listing conservative or religious credentials, unless the “religious activity” is working at an Episcopalian soup kitchen. Keep in mind that academics have no financial stake in hew hires — they won’t make more money if you get hired or have to work harder if you don’t — so they can be much freer in following their personal prejudices.
BTW, explicitly left-wing credentials also will limit your job choices in academia, although not nearly as much. It often takes only one or two faculty members to kill a candidacy, and many schools have at least a couple of conservatives. The candidate who gets hired is often not the one that most faculty members find “great,” but rather the one that pretty much all faculty members find “okay.” Sandy MacHoots(Quote)
Abdul says:
Here’s my anecdote: Back in 2004, I was in the top 15% of a 2nd tier school and on law review. I had federalist society on my resume. I was in a callback interview at a firm for a summer position that was going postively. We’d even discussed the presidential election which was much in the news at that time, but it was civil and lighthearted.
A senior partner shows up late to the interview, looks at my resume and says with disdain, “Federalist Society? How do you explain that?” I did not get an offer from that firm. Abdul(Quote)
ttc says:
I don’t really think much of that argument. Businesses in general are focused on the bottom line, so there would be little to no unethical/illegal hiring discrimination of any kind right? And yet... ttc(Quote)
zuch says:
While the U.S. Supreme Court is still conservative (and it is very conservative, compared to academia, ferinstance), your chance of a Supreme Court clerkship is better with a FedSoc membership. In fact, it’s said that Clarence Thomas will only hire FedSoc clerks.
Cheers, zuch(Quote)
zuch says:
... like Clarence Thomas.... zuch(Quote)
Eric Rasmusen says:
Being a Supreme Court judge OR clerk is a political job, like being a senator. Political beliefs are clearly relevant to being a political staffer. The biggest service I could do to conservatism would be to become a clerk for Justice Ginsburg and sabotage her.
The same is true to a lesser extent for appellate judges, especially ones who view their role as to improve existing law.
That isn’t true of law firm jobs.
Perhaps it *is* true of law schools, from the liberal viewpoint. Do liberals view law school profs as being like employees of nonprofit advocacy organizations or private think tanks? Nobody thinks the Heritage Foundation ought to be hiring liberal scholars to write articles advocating more government regulation. If you view scholarly life as just a thinly veiled exercise in power rather tahn pursuit of truth, and don’t believe in absolute right and wrong, I don’t see what would stop you from hiring and promoting based on ideology and contacts more than ability. We should take people at their word more when they write about things like that, and think about the implications for their behavior. Eric Rasmusen(Quote)
mikeyes says:
I am sure that the the National Restaurant Association approves. :grin:. mikeyes(Quote)
lgm says:
What goes on your professional resume is your job qualifications, period. If you “come out” as a member of the Federalist Society, that’s saying you consider that a positive fact about you. In turn, that says that you consider whacky conservatism a positive trait. Ceteris paribus, the nut would be the worse lawyer.
You would not list membership in the Flat Earth Society on your resume, for the same reason. lgm(Quote)
Jeff Lebowski says:
IANAL, but if I were, I’d hold memberships in both the Federalist Society and the ACLU. Good way to keep ‘em guessing! Jeff Lebowski(Quote)
A.S. says:
First, law firm partners are usually focused on the bottom line. If they reject good conservative or libertarian applicants in favor of inferior liberal ones, their pocketbook is likely to suffer. ... Second, surprising as it may be, many practicing lawyers simply don’t care about politics as intensely as academics and political activists do.
Speaking as a partner in an AmLaw100 firm in NYC, my experience is that both of these are less true than you might think. My experience is that folks are looking for (a) associates who have the ability to do the work, (b) associates with credentials that make the firm’s resume look good, and (c) associates who fit in with the firm’s culture. FedSoc membership could very well be taken into account as part of the last prong. (This obviously doesn’t apply to partners, where the overwhelming credential is the amount of business they have, with a secondary emphasis on having a personality that won’t rock the boat.) A.S.(Quote)
Joe T. Guest says:
A senior partner shows up late to the interview, looks at my resume and says with disdain, “Federalist Society? How do you explain that?” I did not get an offer from that firm.
Well, if you’re interviewing with somebody like that, or a troll like LGM, you simply say, “I needed some way to detect firms with partners who are more interested in advancing their partisan political interests, than practicing law in a collegial environment and making a good living.” You wont get the job — you weren’t going to anyhow — but at least you can escape the interview with your self respect intact. Joe T. Guest(Quote)
Steve says:
Judges, of course, have every right to hire clerks that agree with their judicial philosophy. However, potential clerks can choose not to work for judges who make such a decision.
I absolutely loved this comment. Yeah, you can choose not to work for someone who refuses to hire you, that’ll teach ‘em! Steve(Quote)
PubliusFL says:
I think the National Restaurant Association represents the “upstarts” in that matchup. :) PubliusFL(Quote)
zuch says:
Well, even if the National Restaurant Association had temporal priority, the other “NRA” probably has them outgunned. Quick, man the deep-fryer pots!
Cheers, zuch(Quote)
Mark Field says:
Let’s see. How about ACON? Mark Field(Quote)
Ariel says:
During my interview process, I had one experience where a liberal senior partner asked me about the Federalist Society and strict constructionism. I was extremely uncomfortable during the experience, so I was kind of weaselly, before saying that I was more of a libertarian. I didn’t get the job, though I think I probably would have if I had taken a strong stand. I think he was interested in seeing if I stood up for what I thought, as a test for being a good lawyer, as opposed to a political test. I think he would have liked it if I had fought back, like a litigator might. But I wasn’t ready to do that in an interview context.
I ended up getting a Biglaw job with a much better firm with a very liberal reputation, despite having it on my resume. Ariel(Quote)
Abdul says:
I think that’s part of the problem. Some people stereotype viewpoints they disagree with (“All pro-choicers just want to kill babies” or “Pro-lifers can’t stand the thought of a woman making choices”).
If you base your hiring on a crude caricature of someone else’s beliefs, it’s a type of prejudice. Not all prejudices are bad, and in hiring some are necessary. For instance, it’s not necessarily true that only law review members will be good lawyers, but law review is used as a proxy for legal acumen.
I think the post above is meant to question whether a prejudice for or against the Federalist Society makes sense in hiring decisions. My view is that it makes no sense because people outside the FedSoc really don’t know what goes on inside. The president of the FedSoc my final year was a lesbian with Bill Dobbs-like views on immigration–she was impossible to catergorize politically. As far as I know, I was the only member of both the Christian Legal Society and the Fed Soc, but most people in my law school thought the memberships were interchangeable. Abdul(Quote)
anon says:
You should hope Monica Goodling isn’t doing the hiring. anon(Quote)
Xanthippas says:
I took the American Constitution Society off of my resume while applying for law firm gigs in Texas. It shouldn’t make a difference, and it certainly wouldn’t to me, but you never know. I really think most firms aren’t going to care, but I did have one interview where the interviewer felt it necessary to discuss how much he didn’t like Obama. I think that’s unprofessional, but then I’m not the one doing the hiring. Xanthippas(Quote)
Seamus says:
Shorter lgm: When applying to work with be, be warned that I’m a closed-minded asshole. Seamus(Quote)
Seamus says:
Uh, make that “work with *me*” Seamus(Quote)
DJR says:
As a lawyer in private practice who regularly interviews summer associate and lateral candidates, I question the judgment of people who put the Federalist Society or ACS on their resume, because neither says anything about the candidate’s ability to do the job. Anyone can join these organizations so it’s not an accomplishment by any stretch, nor is it typically the type of experience that reflects on the candidate’s ability to be a successful associate here. Thus, it falls into the category of non-accomplishment, non-experience things that wind up on resumes, like the candidate’s interest in skiing or fly fishing; that is, things to talk about when all else fails. So that tells me that the top two or three things the candidate is interested in talking about include his political beliefs. Given the rule that one should avoid discussing politics or religion, therefore, I question those who put a membership like the Federalist Society on their resume. I sometimes see people list ABA membership, which is equally irrelevant but less controversial because it does not signal particular political beliefs.
Note: For those who say that FedSoc membership does not signal particular political beliefs, save it. It is perceived as a signal so it is a signal, whether that signal is accurate in any given case or not.
I would find it equally questionable if the person listed “Devout Catholic” or “Mormon” on their resume. Either they think that gets them some traction when it doesn’t and shouldn’t, or its an invitation to discuss the person’s religion, which I do not want to do (and would likely be in trouble with HR if I did).
It’s slightly different if the person had a leadership role, which may mean that they actually had some relevant experiences. But simply being a member raises the question, why did they think that was relevant?
One more comment I’m not sure where else to put: I have run across a few attorneys that adhere to a particular judicial philosophy at the expense of their clients. For example, an attorney who is unwilling to argue that the legislative history supports his client’s position because he agrees with Scalia that legislative history is irrelevant, even if the judge might be persuaded. The attorneys in question were all conservatives of (what I perceive to be) the Federalist Society type. If I perceived that inclination in an interviewee, he would get a very strong no-offer recommendation from me. DJR(Quote)
ThenandNow says:
As a former biglaw partner(at a left-leaning firm), I found that political affiliation only mattered to a minority of partners who were very serious about their politics. While a minority, it did seem that the partners most concerned about politics were the same ones who ended up most involved in hiring. As noted above, Federalist Society or Heritage Foundation were supposedly “troubling” as to how the associate would “fit” in the firm culture. ThenandNow(Quote)
OnHawaiianTime says:
I am clerking for a liberal judge who talked to me about being the president of my law school’s chapter of the Federalist Society more than any other single thing in our interview. I just focused on the fact that the FS exists to give a forum to both sides to debate topics, similar to court hearings. Whether I was hired because or despite of my FS affiliation, we get along great and our political differences have not been a negative. If anything, the back and forth seems to refine what ends up being our court’s position and has probably helped both the judge and I more than if we each worked with people with very similar approaches to our own. OnHawaiianTime(Quote)
Mike McDougal says:
That certainly describes my firm. Presuming that the applicants politics won’t get in the way of what we do (mostly fight about contracts of one sort or another), Federalist Society membership is a lot like the applicant’s favorite food or last vacation — it might be something to talk about for a few minutes, but we don’t otherwise care. Mike McDougal(Quote)
Randy says:
“The president of the Fed. Soc. on our campus hid his membership when running for student bar president.
He was subsequently outed on an NLG mailing list, which led to suspect threatened student bar sanctions against the whistleblowers.”
Good lord, where did they have their meetings? In an underground tunnel? Was everyone sworn to an oath of secrecy? Randy(Quote)
Innocent Bystander says:
My anecdote: I applied to DC firms from Harvard/Yale this past fall with otherwise strong credentials. Fed Soc was on my resume. Some interviewers said nothing about it, some asked about it in a less than interested way, a couple were openly hostile. And it was a big plus at a certain firm where Fed Soc membership was, among people I know anyhow, sufficient to get a callback and necessary to get an offer.
At least if you’re applying to DC, I’d strongly recommend against it, unless you can target certain firms that you think would look kindly on it. Innocent Bystander(Quote)
yankee says:
I see no reason to list membership in any law student group unless you hold some kind of leadership position. yankee(Quote)
ADF Alliance Alert » Is Federalist Society Membership an Obstacle to Getting Law Firm Jobs? says:
JustAStudent says:
Nope, meetings were out in the open of course, but the fact that Mr. X was the president wasn’t necessarily known to everyone.
I say “hid his membership”, because during the SBA (student bar association) elections for president, the candidates created full-page resume/qualification flyers. He omitted his association and leadership of the Fed-Soc. The Fed-Soc is a sponsored SBA group, and his being president was arguably the most relevant item he could have listed: both in terms of student group organization abilities as well as how well he’d represent the student body.
Therefore, his omission was seen as deliberate concealment. After he was outed, but before the election was closed, something of a witch-hunt began with threats against those who publicly discussed his membership role. Many suspected collusion between him / Fed-Soc and the SBA. Many of us saw this as additional evidence that he was looking to conceal his Fed-Soc activities. JustAStudent(Quote)
Connecticut Lawyer says:
I clerked for a couple of judges (fed. app. and scotus) and neither cared much about the politics of their law clerks. Maybe that’s abberational, I don’t know. Maybe it was because they were pretty senior and set in their ways and weren’t looking for a lot of guidance from a wet-behind-the-ears law clerk.
Law firms are a different animal. A lot of lawyers are perfectly happy to discriminate against conservatives, liberals, jews, blacks, whites, asians, whatever they feel like discriminating against on any particular day. You can’t hide your ethnic or racial background very well, but it would be prudent for applicants to steer way clear of politics.
Obviously this is even more true in academia, unless you’re a critical race theorist and an anarchist, in which case you’d be wise to highlight your politics. Connecticut Lawyer(Quote)
Bruce Hayden says:
Those can both be pretty easy. Try BYU for undergraduate for the later. Someone pointed out that the other day for me, that some of our new hires were almost assuredly LDS based on having graduated from BYU. I know, not definitive, because I know BYU grads who aren’t, but they seem a rarity. I would think that devout Catholic could be signaled similarly, by undergraduate school. Ditto for Evangelical Protestant. But I think that Mormon is the critical one — I don’t think that it is because of Mormon partners, but rather, you really need Mormon lawyers in your firm when you have a large influential Mormon community in town in order to get their business. Of course, you could argue that that is no different from hiring Jews in cities where they run large businesses and are politically connected, and with Jews, I would think that much of the signaling is through last names. Bruce Hayden(Quote)
Dave Hardy says:
“First, law firm partners are usually focused on the bottom line. If they reject good conservative or libertarian applicants in favor of inferior liberal ones, their pocketbook is likely to suffer.”
I wouldn’t bank on this as a motivator. Eons ago, when I was a dozen years out of law school, I sent my CV and inquiry letters to several dozen big firms here. I had decent credentials — law review, moot court, private practice, government work, etc.. I kept getting letters saying they had no openings for a person with my experience. I thought the wording peculiar and called the author of one of the responses. He explained that, absent a pressing need for someone with a speciality, they don’t hire people with more than a few years’ experience — the other associates feeling that they were in an unfair competition for partnership, etc.
So if they are willing to rule out an entire category of employees specifically because they’d be better than the ones they do hire (hence the unfairness of the competition) I see no reason to believe that market forces would induce them to hire people to whose politics they object. Dave Hardy(Quote)
Ming the Merciless Siamese Cat says:
Membership in the Fed. Soc. is not an honor, accomplishment, recognition, award or credential. I could enroll my dog as a member. So why the hell would you put it on your resume? Membership conveys no relevant information and, if you insist on advertising irrelevant information, you assume the risk someone may use it adversly. Ming the Merciless Siamese Cat(Quote)
RPT says:
My understanding of Los Angeles law firm history is that the Westside firms (e.g. MSK, L&L, KL et al) were established and grew because the downtown firms (e.g. OMM, GDC) wouldn’t hire Jewish lawyers and looked down on entertainment business.
Re Ming’s comment; it makes sense. Putting FS, or ACLU, or anything like that which is not merit based but rather political/ideological, is risky. Maybe it works, but no complaints if it doesn’t. Much better to mention relatives who have business to send to the firm. RPT(Quote)
Tweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Is Federalist Society Membership an Obstacle to Getting Law Firm Jobs? -- Topsy.com says:
Dotar Sojat says:
The only hiring qualification SHOULD be “Can this person do work of a quality for which clients will willingly pay us and for which they will willingly return for more of our services?” Thus a smart firm will hire the best athlete. This completely ignores, however, the constraints of race, gender and sexual orientation quotas for the overall firm, in order to win approval from the Diversity Community. FS or ACS or whatever non-academic affifliations are not the biggest worry at interview time. Personally, I don’t care who or what anyone is or thinks as long as they can help make me money. Dotar Sojat(Quote)
Abdul says:
So membership in the Thomas More Society would be a reason for you not to hire someone?
Hope you have a good employment discrimination practice. Abdul(Quote)
AnonAnon says:
On the “Devote Catholic”/“Mormon” issue, I generally agree, but with an important caveat. Mormons applying for law firm jobs have often done a mission, which can be an impressive leadership and management experience (at least compared to other twentysomething’s work experience). As a non-LDS mid-level associate, I typically consider mission experience a plus. AnonAnon(Quote)
Sandy MacHoots says:
Just to be clear, your resume is a MARKETING tool, not an autobiography. If the goal is to get a job, you only list the things that will help you get that particular job. If you’re a gay NRA member, for example, you put your work for Lambda on the resume at firms where it will help you, and your participation on the Law School Rifle Team on the resume at firms where that will help you. If you don’t know what will help, don’t put either.
If your sexual identity, politics, or religion are critical components of who you are, though, list them. Better to lose a job at a bigoted firm than to get the job and then have to keep your mouth shut lest they discover your dark secret. Sandy MacHoots(Quote)
Smitty says:
“academic job market” isn’t that an oxymoron? Smitty(Quote)
DJR says:
To be clear: I didn’t say that I would not recommend hiring a Catholic or Mormon, I said that someone who lists that on his resume has questionable judgment. On the other hand, if the person’s relevant activities disclose his religion or political affiliation, I think that’s fine, and the experience should be considered to the extent it reflects on their ability to practice law at the high level required at my firm. But one’s religion or politics is no more a qualification in and of itself than is one’s race.*
*(Now they will accuse me of race discrimination). DJR(Quote)
none says:
The inverse seem(ed) to be true (i.e, liberal views = obstacle) at UVA Law in the recent past, if Bill Eskridge is to be believed.
http://www.uvalawblog.com/2009/10/law-weekly-prof-stanley-henderson-who.html none(Quote)
Randy says:
Sandy, as usual, has good insights: “If your sexual identity, politics, or religion are critical components of who you are, though, list them. Better to lose a job at a bigoted firm than to get the job and then have to keep your mouth shut lest they discover your dark secret.”
About ten years ago, the DC bar association sent out a survey to all DC member firms asking them questions about hiring gay and lesbian lawyers. They were all promised anonymity, and I have a copy of the report. Quite a few said that they would never hire a gay or lesbian for any position, and some were quite ‘colorful’ in their language which showed exactly what they think of gays. Some had open gays, and some thought that they had closeted ones.
But Sandy’s point is correct — if you are openly gay, you may want to list activity in a gay organization to signal to the firm that you are openly gay. If they hate gays, for whatever reason, better not to work there anyway. If, on the other hand, you think you can ‘pass’ and remain happily closeted (which you really can’t, of course), then take it off the resume and take your chances. Randy(Quote)
none says:
Tell me more about these alleged quotas. none(Quote)
Dotar Sojat says:
Our firm is required to report a breakdown of our attorneys by ethnicity and sexual orientation. Our office compiles this information at least annually. This information is available to placement offices, and also (I think) a national data base. The particular folks here are gone for the evening, but I will galdly furnish that info tomorrow. I don’t have a dog in that fight, I’m just saying that is what happens. If you are interviewing x candidates for y positions, it could be a constraint. Since I’m not involved in the hiring process, I just work with whoever shows up. Dotar Sojat(Quote)
Randy says:
Justastudent: “Therefore, his omission was seen as deliberate concealment. After he was outed, but before the election was closed, something of a witch-hunt began with threats against those who publicly discussed his membership role. Many suspected collusion between him / Fed-Soc and the SBA. Many of us saw this as additional evidence that he was looking to conceal his Fed-Soc activities.”
Ah, yes, what fun it is to be a student again! I would agree that’s a deliberate concealment, but hardly something that is illegal. I would think that membership in an approved student group is public information, so no one really outed him.
A witch-hunt was begun by whom? Members of Fed-Soc? If so, it really doens’t paint them in a good light. They should be proud of who their leaders are — they voted him in! And just what were they going to do to the ones who found out this bit of information? Call him a tattle-tail? Oooo. That’ll really hurt. Randy(Quote)
JustAStudent says:
Thanks for the candid responses. I’ve been interested in what other Fed-Soc people would think of this. I’ve thought about writing up something about the whole event, but wasn’t sure what venue or style would be appropriate.
* The election had two candidates. Each must write a page-long candidate statement. Mr. X’s (I’m not sure why I’m keeping him and the school anonymous, but it seems like the right thing to do at this point) excludes his membership and presidency of Fed-Soc.
* This message is sent on the student NLG mailing list:
* A conversation starts up on a couple groups’ lists; this is now a hot topic.
The start of the ‘witch hunt’
* Each of the students who posted in these conversations receives formal, sternly worded emails telling them that (1) a complaint has been filed against them with the SBA ‘rules committee’ (most of them had never heard of it) for allegedly breaking campaign rules, which [the letters claimed] prohibit the use of the mailing lists by the campaigns. (2) The recipients would be notified of the results when the investigations concluded.
* The rules committee person refused to name the ‘accuser’. Many of the students on the receiving end were freaked out — had they really broken some ‘rule’? Would this go in their school record? How can this be, if they’re not associated with either campaign? Is there really some committee meeting behind closed doors deciding other students’ guilt? Several uninvolved rules committee people put out the word that there is no such rule.
* The investigations and intimidating emails had the effect of immediately shutting down discussion of the election and the candidates. Free speech was the real victim. We’re a school with many evening students, and the mailing lists are a primary means of communication.
* No one (that I know of) was ever sanctioned or dunned as a result of these ‘investigations’, and at least one person received an apology afterwards from the rule committee person.
So you can see where it’s pretty ironic that the Fed-Soc society would have a role in shutting down free speech on campus, because that’s something that they claim they value. JustAStudent(Quote)
zuch says:
Hell, I did. And I’m almost as leftist as they come (I enrolled to try to have some influence as to who they brought in as speakers). I ended up treasurer of the student chapter (no, I didn’t abscond with the money).
They kept sending me the HJOLAPP ... and asking for donations. Eventually they gave up (or lost my address). But FWIW, the HJOLAPP is not a bad read....
Cheers, zuch(Quote)
Randy says:
Justastudent: This is fun. C’mon you guys are budding lawyers — now you get to put what you learned into practice!
Demand a copy of the complaint — it’s a public document. If there was no complaint filed, you’ve got a scandal. You’ve a constitutional right to know your accuser — who is it?
What are the rules, and where are they published? Shouldn’t the student body have knowledge or access to them? Why don’t they? If there is no rule about this, then why was the sternly worded email sent? Who sent it? If it wasn’t a member of the rules committee, you have another scandal — impersonating a rules committee member.
Secret investigations? No right to confront your accuser, or provide a defense? Unconstitutional. Does this rule really exist? If not, another scandal. If it does, then challenge it’s constitutionality. If Mr. X or whomever withdraws the complaint, then make the withdrawal public, but still insist that this rule be reviewed for constitutionality.
Were any campaign laws violated by Mr. X by not providing his full resume? Was the successful attempt to shut down campaign discussion a violation of state law? Consult your state Board of Elections to see if any violations occurred and what the penalties are.
Geez, this has everything — issue spotting, rules of law, conflict of laws, constitution law. This has to be much more fun than studying property law. If you all go out for pizza afterwards, it’s sorta like a real life murder mystery dinner. Well, without the murder. But it’s still a fun mystery to solve. Randy(Quote)
JustAStudent says:
You’re totally right. Pretty much every aspect of due process went out the window here. It was an amazing fact pattern.
We’re a private school which does receive Title (whatever) funding. (I don’t know anything about this area.) So speaking legally, how many causes of action are left now? But leaving legal scenarios aside, I’m thinking about what changes need to be made to prevent this in the future.
The final result though, is that the bad guy lost, the good girl won, and the overzealous rules committee member has graduated. And a lot of liberal students had their stereotypes about Fed-Soc people seemingly confirmed; that they’re ideologues, interested in free speech only for right wing groups, etc., etc.
And my participation? I was on most of the email lists. (!) I joined in the discussion saying that I knew Mr. X personally, that he had always been a decent guy, but that I didn’t like the speakers the Fed-Soc invited to campus because they were of the pound-the-table appeal-to-emotion variety and didn’t enhance the campus discourse. All the discussion on the liberal student group lists was shut down via ominous emails:
I was then harassed by email -
...and publicly on campus (called an asshole, etc.) by the rules committee student. Eventually, he apologized to me. JustAStudent(Quote)
Randy says:
Justastudent:“So speaking legally, how many causes of action are left now?”
I don’t know. That’s your job! Do some research. It can’t obviate any constitutional issues, though, so I don’t imagine too much would be different.
Of course, if this was all last year, it’s all old news anyway, and few people will care. I do suggest, however, that this Rules Committee be investigated to find out who they are, how they are appointed, and what the rules actually are. Also, where can they be found. They should be on a website easily obtained by any student. Make this a lesson in transparency, not secrecy. Fortunately, secrecy lost, but transparency hasn’t won yet. Randy(Quote)
JustAStudent says:
Thanks, but I disagree. And I’m taking my Con Law II exam tomorrow, and as a B student, here’s my answer: There’s no gov’t actor here, so the constitutional due process protections won’t apply. They would if the college were acting on behalf of the gov’t, but they’re not.
Now, the school does have work-study students, (receiving fed. funding), and will be bound by some restrictions, but AFAIK they provide Equal Protection causes of action, which probably won’t apply here.
Here’s FIRE’s take on it, which backs me up:
JustAStudent(Quote)
Seamus says:
I, for one, don’t believe him. For one thing, Eskridge wasn’t out when he was at the Unversity (though few people were surprised when he came out while at G’town). For another, as one of the commenters on another post at UVA Law Blog points out, “Meh, if UVA was so homophobic I doubt they’d have treated Whitebread so well.” (I’m not sure whether Charlie Whitebread (may he rest in peace) was out while he was at the University, but I think he was. In any event, I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t have mattered for a tenure decision.) Seamus(Quote)
flop says:
I think it’s pretty obvious though that being a fed soc member is a death-nail for a law professor job unless one has an absolute steller CV (and even then....)
I wonder what OK thinks... flop(Quote)
Alan says:
“First, law firm partners are usually focused on the bottom line. If they reject good conservative or libertarian applicants in favor of inferior liberal ones, their pocketbook is likely to suffer.”
If your firm is prestigious enough to have truckloads of applications pouring in, there’s no reason to think that the partners’ pocketbooks will suffer if they discriminate on the basis of ideology. The higher the quality and the greater the number of applications, the easier it is to discriminate without losing any money–you can dump the conservative/libertarian applicants and get a batch of liberals with equally (or approximately equally) high grades. At the most prestigious employers, cost-free discrimination should be quite easy. Alan(Quote)
JustAStudent says:
Exactly. This is the problem with the the idea that the market will punish those who unfairly discriminate. It’s overly simplistic, based on the first half of Econ 101. In the actual world, the logic doesn’t hold up for many reasons: The ‘rational actor’ has been disproved; A 95% good candidate is still an excellent candidate; People feel good about their choices for far more reasons than mere quality statistics (whether the candidate likes the same sports they do, or whether one’s car is “green”); The entire concept of satisficing, etc. JustAStudent(Quote)
Dotar Sojat says:
None — firms are required to report their diversty figures to the Nat’l Assn of Legal Career Professionals (NALP). These numbers are provided to placement offices, and are available to outside parties. Your numbers had better be good. Dotar Sojat(Quote)
TGGP says:
I’d like to see numbers comparing the ideological leanings of lawyers in academia vs big law firms. TGGP(Quote)