Law Firm Discriminates Against Jews
King & Spalding has just announced the “inaugural recipients of the annual King & Spalding Diversity Fellowship Program.”
According to the press release, “Each recipient receives a $10,000 stipend and a position this summer with one of King & Spalding’s U.S. offices.” The recipients earn as much as $2,788 per week (a rate of nearly $145,000 per year).
Not only do program recipients receive “hands-on training” during their summer at the firm, they are the candidates of choice for permanent positions with the firm.
According to the firm, the program is closed to most Jews. (However, unlike many other scholarship programs offered by law firms, the program is open to those of mixed-race.)
A violation of federal law? It sure looks that way, given the provisions of Title VII, including this:
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for any employer, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining, including on-the-job training programs to discriminate against any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in admission to, or employment in, any program established to provide apprenticeship or other training.
____________
Most of the major law firms that have minority scholarship programs have taken to calling them diversity scholarship programs. Most of these programs no longer explicitly exclude certain people (e.g., Jews) because of who their parents are, and that’s a smart move.
One of the stated goals of King & Spalding’s labor and employment practice is to help their clients avoid claims of reverse discrimination. Given that, it might be wise for the firm to reconsider its own advice, which is this: “We also practice what we preach.”
February 1st, 2007 at 10:04
I believe you are mistaken. I looked at the K&S scholarship application, and it says nothing about religion. You seem to be disparaging K&S for some reason. Have you got a beef with them?
February 1st, 2007 at 10:54
Well . . . of course the firm isn’t going to put it in writing: “this scholarship program is closed to most Jews.” They’d be nuts to be so explicit about what they’re doing.
You’re not going to find a Fortune 500 company saying, “on average, we pay our female employees 78% of what we pay our male employees.” You’re not going to find a job posting from any company saying, “if you’re ugly, or obese, or you eat foods that make you smelly funny, we won’t hire you.” You’ll find none of that.
Modern forms of employment discrimination are subtle. Classic example: a fire department says it’ll only hire fire fighters who can pass a physical test that few women can pass. On its face, it doesn’t seem like discrimination: everyone is presented with the same test. But then a woman claims that, since it’s harder for women to pass the test than it is for men, it is discrimination. (See, for instance, Brenda Berkman et al. v. City of New York et al.) When the matter gets to court, it’s decided that the test IS discriminatory simply because it’s harder for women to pass it.
In the same way, it’s impossible for most Jews to get law firm scholarships (and attendant summer jobs, and resultant employment opportunities).
How is that? Just take a look at how K & S advertises its scholarship. It says it’s open to law students, “who show promise of contributing meaningfully to the diversity of the legal community.” Since Jews constitute an over-represented, rather than an under-represented, ethnic group, they’re not eligible.
The firm isn’t going to say, “we’re trying to reduce the percentage of our attorneys who are Jewish,” but that’s the precise effect of its diversity program.
February 2nd, 2007 at 08:25
I think it might be more accurate to say the firm discriminates against whites, rather than Jews.
February 4th, 2007 at 10:43
That would be accurate, but it’s still fair to say the firm discriminates against Jews. You can view law firm diversity initiatives as an effort to reduce the number of Jewish lawyers working at major firms.
Lots of firms say they want a workforce that “mirrors the diversity of the communities in which we live and work.” Fine. For most firms, that means substantially reducing the number of Jewish attorneys.
If a firm is serious about this “mirroring” notion, then it can’t have 20% of its attorneys mirroring 5% of the population.
Again, Jews are an over-represented group in the legal profession, so diversity efforts are going to impact them more than others.
It’s an odd thing. Jews are a minority group, but not in the legal profession. I know of no law firm, no bar association, no law school . . . no group in legal circles that considers this minority to be a minoity.