I don't practice anymore but am a member of the VA Bar, honestly I haven't read carefully all of the articles Mr. Rosenberg discusses, but can confirm in my cursory reading of all the VA Bar magazines, newsletters, etc., over the last couple of years it seems more like a "Diversity" organization that happens to involve law rather than a legal organization that's attempting to increase diversity.

Nifonged, it's probably like that in many states. We have an informal monthly pool on how far into our state bar mag the first "diversity" or "[insert minority group here] Bar Association" story will be run. The good numbers are all smaller than five.

Five pages, Chris. But that is funny.

It is one of the failings of the majority of Americans opposed to quotas that there's been no widespread resistance via everyone just checking "African-American" on every form that asks.

Make them start testing blood and this stuff ends.

What kind of nitwit cannot clearly state what he means by "diversity," yet proclaims in conclusory fashion that whatever it is, law cannot exist without
it?

He could define it, but then everyone would be onto the scam. If he keeps being vague, he'll get his task force or whatever other group he's after with no-show jobs to hand out to friends and cronies. It's just typical race hustling dressed up pretty.

Constantin:

I always check "other". My Cherokee one-sixteenth gives me plausible deniability.

If given a write-in, then I'm "American".

Given that the legal profession can touch upon every aspect of people's lives (the canard about needing minority lawyers to represent blacks who are overrepresented in the criminal justice system aside), it behooves us to have a diverse legal profession.

"Diversity," however, is about more than skin colour, religion, and sex. As Rosenberg's post mentions, "diversity" can, and should, include poor white kids from the Appalachian mountain region. The poverty in the western part of Virginia stems from a radically different source, and affects a different demographic of people, than does the poverty in Washington DC or Richmond. Even "economic" diversity doesn't distinguish between a poor black kid who grew up in southeast DC and a poor white kid who grew up in West Virginia and whose daddy died in the coal mines when he was ten.

Nevertheless, these "diversity" initiatives are always aimed at achieving results that are both politically correct and easily demonstrable. Hell would freeze over before the VBA aimed its recruiting efforts at devout Catholics, coal miner's kids, engineers, farmers, or small business owners - despite the fact that they could all offer valuable intellectual contributions to the legal profession, represent groups that are not typically the focus of outreach efforts (not poor enough to qualify for government assistance, and not wealthy enough to afford it), and add something to the law school classroom.

On a final note, the idea of needing more blacks to represent African-Americans who are on trial for drug use is nauseating. How about getting the brightest African-Americans into law school classrooms so they can represent corporations, become law professors, go into politics, or get appointed to a judgeship? Realistically, the beneficiaries of diversity movements are upper-middle class blacks, who grew up in the suburbs, have educated parents, went to good high schools, and would be on the path to success no matter what. Let's be real: the VBA isn't pulling African-American kids out of inner-city DC and the poor parts of Richmond and getting them psyched about being lawyers so they can change their neighbourhoods.

“‘Diversity,’” theobromophile writes, “is about more than skin colour, religion, and sex. As Rosenberg's post mentions, ‘diversity’ can, and should, include poor white kids from the Appalachian mountain region,” as well as “devout Catholics, coal miner's kids, engineers, farmers, or small business owners....”

No, and yes. To start with the yes, real diversity obviously can and should be concerned with much more than race, ethnicity, and sex. But no, as actually practiced almost everywhere, “diversity” is in fact definitely not about more than race, ethnicity, and sex.

“Realistically,” theobromophile also writes, “the beneficiaries of diversity movements are upper-middle class blacks, who grew up in the suburbs, have educated parents, went to good high schools, and would be on the path to success no matter what.”

Again, yes and no. Yes, most of those who are admitted under “diversity”-justified affirmative action policies are upper-middle class (and higher) blacks. But if you take the arguments and justifications of those who promote and defend these policies seriously (something, I admit, you should do at your own risk), then no, those blacks are not the beneficiaries. They are merely the instrument of the benefit that is claimed to accrue to others by virtue of being exposed to them. (The preferentially admitted blacks also receive whatever benefits flow from being exposed to the non-diverse, but they don’t need affirmative action preferences for that. They would receive those same benefits by attending less selective institutions with no need to lower the standards for them.)

Mr Rosenberg: we're in agreement. I'm just not very coherent when I respond to blogs late at night. :)

What I was driving at - badly - was the disparity between diversity in theory (which has its merits) and diversity as commonly practised in American academia and the legal profession in particular. There is a definite value to the former (although, it should be noted, that the value of the ends doesn't justify the means, or even that every means even achieve the desired ends), although the latter is dubious at best and counterproductive at worst.

I also have my gripes with diversity as practised because I see such a value in a broader, more comprehensive diversity, which becomes the sacrificial lamb to the PC gods.

But if you take the arguments and justifications of those who promote and defend these policies seriously (something, I admit, you should do at your own risk), then no, those blacks are not the beneficiaries. They are merely the instrument of the benefit that is claimed to accrue to others by virtue of being exposed to them.

Agreed... I didn't get into that because I didn't feel like writing one of those marathon comments that everyone stops reading after two paragraphs.

There is a problem in using people as a means to an end (and not for their own, intrinsic good). As you may be aware, people admitted under affirmative action programmes are often academically outgunned by their peers, and pay the price for that in their academics, finances, and career. The particularly grotesque part of this is that we are setting blacks up for failure so that whites - the traditional oppressors - can have a more interesting educational experience.

In a law firm, each attorney's income depends on the ability of all other attorneys to generate income. There should be one primary hiring criteria: Can this candidate do work of a quality for which clients will willingly pay, and for which clients will willingly return? Outmoded thought, I know.