How in a nation that is 51 percent female and 30 percent people of color could there be a regular guy?
We must raise our consciousness levels to understand that a group of white men in any setting or position is just that–a group of white men–not the natural course of events.
MY FIRST PROJECT AT THE MINORITY CORPORATE Counsel Association (MCCA) was to conduct the research for the Creating Pathways to Diversity™ project, which is the first study of its kind to comprehensively examine diversity initiatives in corporate legal departments. After several rounds of telephone calls and letters to the general counsel of 16 corporate law departments, I interviewed each diversity team leader.
During one telephone conversation, a general counsel, who is a white male, explains that the company has made a concerted effort to attract minorities and women by initiating a mentoring program and by extending their recruitment efforts to historically black universities.
Their program, he explains, began in 1999 after repeated requests from senior management and human resources to diversify their attorney base. Near the end of the interview, I inquired about the department's demographic profile. After an awkward moment of silence, he replied, "Well, so far we only have a dozen minorities, 23 women, and the other 47 of us are just regular guys."
Since he described himself as a regular guy, there was no need to ask what was meant. Yet, I still find it difficult to reconcile his definition of regular with my own. To me, regular usually means normal or what everyone expects—two definitions that are tied inextricably to greater numbers.
These regular guys constitute only 32 percent of the U.S. population, according to the 2000 census report, but more than 62 percent of all attorneys; 87 percent of all Fortune 500 general counsel; 61 percent of all law school faculty; and 82 percent of partners in the largest 250 law firms—according to Miles To Go, a report of the ABA Commission on Minorities in the Legal Profession.
Given the significant percentages of white men in the legal profession, it is not difficult to see how some attorneys have preconceived notions of who is a regular guy. According to the person I spoke with, my interpretation is that he means white and male. It may even refer to a particular age group or sexual orientation. Thus, the use of the adjective, regular, perhaps classifies one group (in this instance, white men) in the expected or normal category and defines everyone else as irregular or unusual.
Subsequently, what could be said to him that would make him aware of his inappropriate word choice? Or, perhaps I was being overly sensitive? By numerical standards, his department's demographic representation exceeded most legal divisions, with almost 15 percent minorities and 29 percent women. They had even instituted a mentoring program and begun to look seriously at candidates from outside the top 20 law schools—two practices MCCA later recommended in its report, Creating Pathways to Diversity. By any measure, his department led its peers on the issue of diversity. However, this notion of a regular guy sparked my own set of questions. I also wondered about how far I could extend his slippery word usage.
- If a white male is regular, who is irregular?
- How in a nation that is 51percent female and 30 percent people of color could there be a regular guy?
- Are the minorities and women he hired regular by virtue of their membership in the department or are they forever relegated to the ranks of the irregular?
- What sets of expectations are held for regular people that are not held for irregular staff?
- Do regular people get regular treatment, and if so, is this preferential?
- Is it regular when a white male is promoted or put on the fast track to management?
- If a minority or a woman is treated the same way, then conversely, must that promotion or advancement be considered irregular or preferential?
GIVEN THEIR IRREGULAR COMPLEXION, perhaps people of color might subsequently spend a lot of time trying to be regular if they were an attorney in this legal department. They might try to talk, walk, and even act like a regular guy.
If they were desperate, they might even choose regular neighborhoods and schools for their families, fix their hair in regular ways, or wear contact lenses to make their eye color match that of regular people. Clearly, no one wants to be irregular if success is predicated on being regular. Perhaps, this is why successful minority attorneys have endured such intense scrutiny and covert discrimination—because their accomplishments are irregular and extraordinary.
To assume that all-white-male settings are regular occurrences, or the natural order of business, presumes ideas of merit that disadvantage irregular people (read: the other 68 percent of the American population and 85 percent of the globe). The assumption of regular guys who succeed in regular ways creates obstacles to any diversity initiative because it undermines the ability of non-whites and women to be treated fairly.
This also means that irregular people will spend a disproportionate amount of time trying to be regular so that they receive the same professional respect and opportunities accorded to regular guys. As a result, law firms and law departments fail to tap into the creativity, talents, and differences that accompany the irregular perspectives of women and minorities.
Given the assumptions of what is normal, it is easy to see why minority attorneys frequently complain of unfair treatment, miscommunication, and cultural bias. After all, regular guys are respected, expected to succeed, and given the chance for high visibility assignments that develop their legal skills.
Few will question a group of white male partners or executives on the quality of their work, speech, or commitment. In most major law firms and legal departments, their performance and behavior are the norm against which others are evaluated. Similarity in work ethic, communication and style beget promotion; differences are typically devalued because they disrupt the extant work patterns or are at best, tolerated under the rubric of diversity. For irregular people to have the same opportunities would require some extraordinary effort on their part to be recognized and the adoption of regular communication styles, work ethics, and values.
Perhaps the subject of my interview assumed that he was regular because most white male attorneys never think of themselves as white, much less a race; they are the regular guys whom some naturally expect to be at the forefront of the legal profession and the absence of whom raises questions about the quality of representation. To these white men, race or gender consciousness is triggered only when irregular beings, such as myself, or the other 51 percent of the human population, women, are in their presence. It follows, too, that these regular guys will typically underestimate the importance of race and gender in the workplace because their culture and values are the dominant attributes to which others must adapt in order to succeed.
This racial unconsciousness is both good and bad. It is good in the sense that people of color now have access to formerly white-only careers, venues, business opportunities, and neighborhoods. Additionally, these privileges no longer distinguish whites from other Americans with similar education levels and opportunities.
IT IS BAD BECAUSE PERHAPS IT HAS LEFT SOME white Americans without a real sense of racial identity, or at least not one that manifests itself as explicit racial consciousness among their white peers because that is considered a regular gathering.
We must all raise our consciousness levels to understand that a group of white men in any setting or position is just that—a group of white men—not the natural course of events. White men are no more regular than any other human being, even if they are more statistically prevalent in most of today's legal departments and corporations.
Corporate law departments and law firms that are serious about making the inclusive workplace a reality have to critically address their employees' understanding of their role in the diversity initiative. White men will not invest time and energy into a program if they do not feel they are a part of diversity or if they cannot accept others who are different from themselves as regular attorneys who will contribute to the department or firm when given a fair chance.
For those who believe that diversity is just for women and minorities, think again! The legal profession of the future is one in which an inclusive workplace is the regular expectation.
Scott Mitchell has been MCCA's Director of Programs since 1999. This fall, Scott will return his attention to his medical studies with the intent of entering medical school in 2003. Although he will continue to consult with MCCA on select research projects, we will all miss his talent, enthusiasm, and thought-provoking perspectives.
From the September 2001 issue of Diversity & The Bar®