So, was trying to find an appropriate thread for this post, which is about an observation on the plain and obvious lasting nature of institutional racism, and how it places minorities behind the curve for generations.
I was recently at an event honoring some of the great black lawyers in Central Texas. It's not the first one I've been to, but as I read the bios of these folks -- truly outstanding lawyers, all of them, people who went to top-notch schools (mostly in the north, by the way), had notable achievements academically, etc. -- it clicked that most of them that I've read over those years involve long terms of working as a government lawyer. Not all of them, but almost all, started their careers as government attorneys.
Those jobs are fine jobs, and a much needed and appreciated public service. But make no mistake, if a student graduates today from Michigan, or Stanford, etc., with honors, they have a clear path to a job with a high-end law firm that pays 5X what an entry level gov't attorney job pays. But back when these folks were graduating law school - the 70s-80s - that was not the case.
So, until up to about 30 years ago (and let's be plain and clear, the way isn't entirely clear even today), that top-notch black law student had a much harder time even getting in the door of Fancy Law Firm LLP. And even if he/she did, remember that the lawyers at Fancy Law Firm LLP all went to the same schools together, their parents went to the same schools, and a good chunk of them were hired because 1) yes, they did well in law school, but also 2) their dad was friends/business associate with the hiring partner, who vouched for them and walked them right into their job. The black law students? Their dad did NOT go to school with or associate with the hiring partner, because that simply did not happen back in the day.
A generic high achieving white student, with no connections, was already more likely to get an interview and be hired than an identical black student. Then layer on the fact that many of those white students ALSO had generational family connections that could give them a leg up in the job application process...a leg up that few black students had. Now, take that out another generation. The parents of today's black students are STILL underrepresented in the ranks the Fancy Law Firm LLP type places, as well as the people who network with and are connected to the attorneys there. So a black student even today likely has fewer connections and advantages to help him get that job at Fancy Law Firm LLP.
So, why are DELIBERATE efforts to recruit diverse candidates important? Because the long-term effects of systemic, institutionalized racism STILL skew the playing field, and make it more likely that white candidate X can get a particular job than black candidate Y. In order to try to level that field, we need to DELIBERATELY LOOK FOR AND TO minority candidates. No, not without making sure that they are qualified. But to make sure that they aren't missed. The Hiring Partner at Fancy Law Firm LLP gets 20 resumes sent to him by old connections, pushing their kid, or their nephew, or whatnot. What would be helpful is if Hiring Partner ALSO had a policy/incentive/something like that to affirmatively gather 20 resumes from minority students who do NOT have connections to Fancy Law Firm LLP. Then, you interview and hire appropriately, and honestly. Because honestly....some of those nepotism resumes may have a nice academic ring to them, but the candidate is a dim bulb or dud. And some of those minority resumes are going to belong to some impressive SOBs who you never would have met if you hadn't sought them out.
That dynamic is what DEI and such is all about. And is it needed? I'd say the resumes of impressive minority lawyer after impressive minority lawyer reflecting long tenures in government jobs says "yes, it is still needed." Legacies, connections, and nepotism matter. A lot. DEI is necessary to even come close to creating equal opportunity in light of the unequal distribution of those advantages.