“Diversity involves recognizing, including, celebrating, rewarding and utilizing differences of gender, race, ethnicity, age and thought – sweetening and often strengthening the pot.”
—-The Georgia Chief Justice’s Commission on Professionalism in the document supposedly designed to give Continuing Legal Education trainers (like me) guidance in preparing seminars on “professionalism,” exemplary conduct that goes beyond the Rules of Professional Conduct to bolster public trust and the reputation of the legal profession.
What utter, illogical, embarrassing, unethical, woke garbage this is…and from a judicial commission no less! I dare anyone to defend it. The putative author is someone named Karlise Y. Grier, who is supposedly a lawyer, and lawyers are supposed to be trained in critical thought. Gee, I wonder if…[checking]….of course she is. Only the undeserved beneficiary of such nonsense could endorse it so fatuously.
I’m going to be teaching, not for the first time, a professionalism seminar for Georgia lawyers, who are among those in the few states that require special “professionalism” credits. I had to read, in due diligence, the guidelines for such programs in Georgia that almost took longer to read than the course will last (one hour) because it was full of bloated bureaucratic babble. It is a professional requirement for lawyers to write clearly, but most don’t, and this thing was a disgrace. Nothing was as bad as that paragraph above, though.
What does “recognizing” differences in gender mean, and what does it have to do with the ethical practice of law? (Hint: Nothing.) Lawyers should treat all clients and adversaries the same regardless of race, gender or other group characteristics. Is that paragraph saying that Georgia lawyers should be able to tell a man from a woman? Is this a problem in Georgia?
“Including” in that paragraph is meaningless: “including….differences of gender, race, ethnicity, age and thought” in what? The same problem exists regarding “utilizing….differences of gender, race, ethnicity, age and thought.” Utilizing them for what? The other two words in the paragraph make more sense, sort of, but advocate dubious values: “Celebrating” and “rewarding.” The first is just stupid: “Yippee! Yahoo! You’re black!” What is there to “celebrate”? As for “reward,” that seems directly unconstitutional. In this country we are supposed to reward citizens for what they do, not for what color they are, naughty bits they have, who they like to have sex with or what god they worship. Do the people who write crap like this ever “celebrate” or “reward” thought they disagree with? Based on what I’ve seen over the last couple of years, I’d say that they want to do the opposite.
Then we finally get to the most fatuous rhetoric of all: “sweetening and often strengthening the pot.” This is gibberish. How does any of what’s described “sweeten” anything? Besides, you sweeten what’s in a pot, but you strengthen the pot itself: does the writer not know the difference? And what is “the pot”? The legal profession? Society? Justice? What? WHAT?
This is just woke virtue-signaling incoherently stated. Did anyone read this mess before it was published? Letting such junk represent a bar, the judiciary or the legal profession is itself unprofessional: incompetent, lazy, irresponsible, destructive to the image of Georgia’s lawyers.
Right now I’m wrestling with the temptation to critique that stupid language and its author in my Georgia professionalism seminar….
Ethics Alarms 
I’ve seen and heard “sweeten the pot” used in the context of gambling or deal-making, and it looks to me like the author was trying to combine that with the “melting pot” context.
Part of me hopes you do rip into this thing in your seminar, though you might bring unnecessary heat on yourself. You could just emphasize what you said here about treating all clients and adversaries the same.
Oh, I’m tempted. And I’ve lost jobs before criticizing my clients. This one really deserves it…
You’re right, that’s exactly what she was doing. So she’s an idiot. Got it.
I have nothing to add but agreement.
It’s a bunch of buzz-words cobbled together in a word salad worthy of Kamala Harris.
Use the Socratic method and make the attendees defend this shite
I agree about being clear. What you provided as your example above is just gibberish. You have to have the right dictionary to be able to translate it. It’s so important that professionals be clear in what they are trying to communicate.
A few years ago, Alan Alda began working to get medical professionals to use understandable words with patients so they know what’s happening to them.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/06/04/531271710/alan-aldas-experiment-helping-scientists-learn-to-talk-to-the-rest-of-us
I don’t know what mood I’m in but I’m up for a little “Devil’s Advocate” today. Let’s give it a go.
I have many thoughts regarding the DEI space – but one point I’d like to make clear is that the concensus often focuses on how to measure and demonstrate improvement on a quantitative scale when DEI often, in my opinion, is more important from a qualitative standpoint.
In the rush to “prove” and “show results”, the drivers of the movement are seeking and promoting changes in outcomes rather than the root causes related to opportunity. In so doing, they may “move the goalposts” to arrive at a certain outcome. Reasonable people know instinctively that this is bad, as articulated in Charlie Kirk’s hypotheticals about adding white Americans to the NBA or whether black commercial airline pilots demonstrated the same skill, knowledge, and experience as their peers or were they a beneficiary of reduced expectations. The “rigging” of the outcomes complicates perceptions of DEI and creates negative emotions among the opponents of the measures.
However, I would contend that DEI has its place in the world, and it efforts need to focus early at development, at opportunity. When diversity exists in a group, the group can leverage more experiences, more knowledge, more understanding. How many “how could this happen” corporate marketing oopsies have we seen because no one in the marketing meeting had the brain cells to say “Wait, what if this is a bad idea?” Visibility to diversity can be equally important as it can inspire future generations from an early age to see themselves in that position.
These are some of the benefits. To reap these benefits, you have to include diversity. To include diversity, you need viable participants. To get viable participants, inspiration and opportunity have to happen at a young age; but you also have to go to the places where diversity exist. In a corporate environment, you would have to seek applicants from all walks of life. So many companies put up a job posting and they have 30 applicants by the end of the day. Which 30 were just lucky enough to see the posting? How many were serious? How many were generated by a programmed bot? How many were from existing employee social networks?
Companies aren’t necessarily even advertising their opportunities – so if their pool of applicants is a little bland, the effort needed is to seek applicants by advertising to new and different pools. Present the opportunity more widely, and maybe the applicant pool will provide a truly excellent candidate.
What about equity? It’s not something I’ve mentioned yet, but it’s the one that generates the greatest pitfalls for DEI warriors. I won’t get into the pitfalls, but I believe the proper utilization of equity is to ensure, as a provider of an opportunity, that proper weight is given to relevant factors. A company might need to fill five positions to answer phones. Is giving all five positions to white men who speak in a slow intelligible cadence the best for business? Was consideration given to whether support for additional languages is needed? Perhaps the best outcome could be having a position filled by various people of various communities who speak and understand the different plights of the customer and maybe speak additional languages, even if their english is a little rough on the edges.
Comment of the Day.
Tim
Very well reasoned rebuttal to DEI critics.
However, you are associating diverse experiences with immutable characteristics and not actual experience unless the hiring officer stereotypes different demographic groups and assigns some qualitative factor. You posited: “Diversity is the differences of gender, race, ethnicity, age, and thought that can add value”.
I will accept thought as something that can add value but the others require a third party assignment of qualitative values for an applicant which for the most part requires stereotyping based on an immutable characteristic.
Do the children of Kobe Bryant have the same experiences as some inner city kid who graduated with the same degree as one of Kobe’s kids. Should a Harvard grad be given a higher rank than a applicant from some state university at Mckinsey or Blackrock Capital where virtually every person newly hired has an Ivy league degree irrespective of gender, race, ethnicity, and age? Besides who needs diversity at McKinsey when the 7S model is the one pushed across all disciplines.
The point is that the very experiences that are claimed to be sought after are never in the published opportunity for the position for which they are seeking applicants. This tells me that the immutable characteristic is what serves as the proxy for thought. That is hardly the case.
The argument you put forth is the same argument I hear from those that support pushing DEI as a means to raise the numbers of one group in the total employee base. From a theoretical perspective the idea is sound. There is no doubt in my mind that diverse perspectives can add value. However, diversity of ideas is rarely if ever part of the selection process; organizational “fit” is given far more weight and disrupters are frowned upon. In addition, diversity can bog down decision making when corporate politics exist. Finally, human beings, being fallible and rationally self interested, will follow the path of least resistance when attempting to achieve some arbitrary and ill-defined goal at work.
Contrary to progressive opinion, profit maximizing behavior only exists in closely held and managed organizations. Profit satisficing is more typical in the corporate world. We hear a great deal about executive leadership but in reality these executives make decisions based on protecting their long term wealth maximization for the least cost and will do just enough to maintain their ability to make their immediate boss look good.
Thanks. I gave it the best I had, but you have presented a few fair counter-points.
The Achilles’ heel of DEI is what you just pointed out. What’s truly deplorable about DEI is that this is the first explicit DEI shibboleth list I’ve ever seen that even included diversity of thought–the rest rely ONLY on those immutable characteristics you mention, as though each person’s value to a group is defined by those characteristics.
Excellent rejoinder, Chris.
jvb
Couldn’t have said it better myself. Thanks for these insights, Tim!
When we find the points other people seem to be trying to make that we agree with, and we make those points better than they do, that demonstrates to them that we aren’t evil and that we’re willing to work with them to figure out reasonable solutions. It also narrows down our own concerns, so that we don’t get distracted arguing about the things we agree on.
Yes, external features can signal past disadvantages, but today they might not tell the full story. We’re moving toward providing opportunities for all, which is great. But what about diversity from people working hard to bring unique voices to a team? That’s the best kind: diversity of ideas, approaches, abilities. This doesn’t ignore disadvantages like disabilities or neurodiversity, which cross ethnic and gender lines. People’s experiences drive valuable diversity of thought that can boost group performance. While race and sex still matter, many individual factors shape experiences too. Focusing only on external traits overlooks individuals, and I think that’s wrong.
Absolutely correct. No decision should ever be made solely on immutable traits. With that said, some of those immutable traits should be appropriately weighted and factored into a comprehensive rubric. This looks much different for a “science heavy” opportunity where an immutable trait has a close to zero value – and an opportunity with marketing to urban communities where the value is obvious. Even in the latter scenario, you still shouldn’t base your decision solely on the immutable trait, but I guarantee you should definitely use that immutable trait to decide how you seek to build your applicant pool. A thorough and proper interview process is still necessary and you will find the most qualified person based on their experiences and abilities regardless of the melinin content of their skin.
I think we need the keyboard warriors of the world, on both sides, to realize that DEI has a small role. It’s not a BIG role like the left would have you believe, and it’s not NONEXISTENT as the right would have you believe. It’s nuanced and tailored to every opportunity and every organization. Trying to create a one-size-fits-all statement on DEI is utterly pointless. Are there disadvantaged democraphics in this country and providing a little extra effort to make sure those demographics are at the table vying for the opportunities is incredibly important. You don’t have to make it easy, but you must ensure the doors aren’t welded shut.
You mean SHOULD have a small role. The entire Biden Administration, from the VP, to the Cabinet, to idiotic Ms. Jean Pierre, was proof that DEI currently it has a huge and damaging role. Look at the author of the gibberish who spawned this discussion. She’s a lawyer. She’s an illiterate idiot. Lawyers should not be illiterate idiot no matter what color or gender they are. How did an illegal alien with weapons charges end up as the head of a major school system?
Yes, correction accepted. SHOULD
“A thorough and proper interview process is still necessary, and you will find the most qualified person based on their experiences and abilities regardless of the melanin content of their skin.”
…and that’s precisely why I think we should be cautious about weighting immutable traits at all. Once you admit them into the rubric, even lightly, you risk letting proxies stand in for the individuality you just affirmed. As a result, the individual underneath the skin is maximally seen and respected, and consumers (of all genders and ethnic backgrounds) have access to the most innovative, useful and reliable products, including machinery, technology, therapies, feedback, and information. If a proper interview finds the most qualified person, then weighting immutable traits in advance isn’t just unnecessary — it risks distortion.
Agree, and also: Interviewing skills are not necessarily job performance skills, and I say this as someone who talked his way into Harvard College. As a stage director, it always bothered me that the director hiring process depended so much on the interview, where bullshit artists who couldn’t direct worth a damn always could snow companies with babble about “concepts” and similar crap. Imagine an interview process for the President of the United States among all the Presidents since Washington. Martin Van Buren, Taft, Buchanan and Wilson would shine: so would JFK. LBJ, Polk and Jackson not so much.
Agree to an extent. Honestly, the best scenario is to have a recruiter filling the pool of applicants and ensuring that there’s a good mix. Beyond that, the candidates need to be handed over without those identifying markers and the pool should be worked from an entirely clean “meritocracy” perspective; unless there was a specific and significant factor that was otherwise required. (2nd language speaking skills, native linguist vs learned, specific dialect, etc)
When the hiring manager is properly set up with a diverse slate and they aren’t privvy to those factors, they don’t have to consider those factors and can focus on the merit and the possiblity of best success. Statistically at that point, they’ll likely end up with natural diverse hiring. If after 20 years they still only hired white people you will actually have to further look at understanding why that’s the case (good or bad).
Separately, imagine the scenario of a new hire that is black. He’s talking with peers in his community and they ask about his new job, how he got his new job. What is the impact if he says “oh they needed a black person, so I got the job because of my skin color” vs “I really put forward my best self in the interview process, answered some tough questions and I did these 3 things to make myself more appealing”.
The former (1st) response, I would imagine, makes the peer think he doesn’t have to perform, he can still just be black and expect a job any day now. Your new hire thinks he got the job only because he’s black and he might actually not be able to do the job because he’s now set up to fail and he’ll generate some type of imposter syndrome.
The latter (2nd) response, I would imagine, would inspire his peers to step up their game, match his efforts to win their own place. It also shows that he feels he’s earned (not entitled) to the position and that he’s been deemed worthy to complete the job and succeed.
DEI is truly an extremely delicate balancing act riddled with pitfalls and errors waiting to be made by well intentioned people; but doing nothing and being exclusionary is not going to help heal this nation.
Years ago, the Detroit Symphony Orchestra was criticized for not looking “diverse enough.” But DSO auditions were already done behind a partition — the judges couldn’t see age, race, gender, height, or anything else. Only the music mattered.
That system has at least four advantages:
It rewards preparation and ability, nothing else.
It proves no prejudice can block anyone from reaching the stage.
It inspires the community, because the best music always speaks more loudly than quotas.
It shows respect — for the music, for the musicians, and for the audience.
If DEI is supposed to be about fairness, then the DSO model achieved it long before the acronym existed.
Ms. Grier seems to be heavily invested in this group, the GABWA (Georgia Association of Black Women Attorneys) , including being a past president. This is DEI to the hilt (though not really, if you consider the actual meaning of the word “diversity”).
Good luck with your presentation 😉