Second verse, same as the first

This article by Stuart Taylor is a marvelous example of how conservatives either cannot — or willfully refuse to — understand the dynamics of racism.

The article offers the traditional, tried-and-true argument that affirmative action policies at law firms end up hurting minorities because the ones who get hired are less competent, end up with bad assignments and worse training, and ultimately leave the firm. It is nominally based on one researcher’s conclusions that such dynamics occur and, without reading the data, I can’t offer a substantive critique of the numbers and research methods. But parts of the article — and, apparently, the research on which it is based — are laughable:

Numerous surveys of young black lawyers in large firms show that “within a couple of years of starting associate jobs, many blacks and Hispanics have been largely relegated to routine, unchallenging work and deprived of most benefits of training, mentorship, and partner contact,” Sander reports. Most minority lawyers do more “grunt work” than whites, have less contact with partners, report “frustration and a sense of failure,” and leave within the first few years.

Why? Surveys belie the views of some analysts that minority law students are less interested in corporate law firms than whites, Sander reports. Rather, the most plausible explanation is that although firms make collective decisions to use hiring preferences, the individual partners who dole out plum assignments have “an overwhelming incentive” to choose those perceived to be most able and “to shun those whom the attorney thinks for any reason may not be up to the job.”

Surveys show that a significant minority of young black and Hispanic lawyers in large firms perceive themselves to be victims of old-fashioned racial hostility on the job, Sander explains. But does this reflect reality? It’s worth noting that 20 percent of entering black law students in one large survey thought they had been victims of discrimination in the admissions process — and that this was quite obviously the opposite of the truth.

Why would the same firms that use aggressive racial preferences to bring in minorities then turn around and discriminate against them? And why, if the firms are racist, are there virtually no complaints of discrimination in pay, hours of work or overt treatment?

It’s also telling that young blacks at firms with fewer than 50 lawyers — firms that do not use large racial preferences, the data show — report far, far fewer problems. There is no reason to suppose that these firms are more enlightened. The most plausible explanation, Sander shows, is that they hire minority lawyers who are well qualified for their jobs and whose work shows it.

To be sure, some big-firm partners may well be twisted by racial animus, Sander says. But probably not very many. And it would not be hard for minority associates to find out who those partners are and avoid them.

I love this. Let’s break down his arguments.

First, racism doesn’t exist because assigning partners have an incentive to not be racist. (I’d also add, clearly, racism doesn’t exist anywhere in society because people who hire other people always have a strong incentive to hire the best workers, no? Hey, we just solved racism! Cool!)

Second, there can’t be racism at a law firm because it would be irrational for a firm to actively encourage minority hiring and then treat its new hires with hostility.

Third, “proof” exists because small firms, which by nature have fewer hiring preferences, have fewer problems than large ones.

Fourth, minority associates – you know, your first or second or third year associate with all that marvelous power and authority over the senior partners at the firm – can just avoid the racist ones.

Of course, all of these arguments share a common thread: They all assume that whenever anyone charges “racism,” they’re talking about overt, KKK style bigotry, complete with blackface and use of the N-word. But no one is arguing that this is the form of racism that exists in law firms. Rather, the argument is that law firms are cliquish organizations in which work and mentoring relationships are doled out based on personal idiosyncrasies and social relationships. And that means that all the unconscious racism can fly free — people just happen to make friends with other people who are just like themselves, and suddenly minority hires find themselves without mentors and without the best work.

And I honestly can’t fathom whether writers like Taylor really don’t understand this, or whether they intentionally keep trotting out the same old straw men in order to keep a “debate” going.

(via Tax Prof Blog)