MEMORANDUM
EYES ONLY PARTNERS
To: Partners
From: Dr Strangelove, Director of Education
RE: DIVERSITY – OUR POSITION
1. I have been asked to provide a position paper on Diversity, the need for it and, in particular, the public PR stance to be taken by Muttley Dastardly LLP. There is also the matter of the present government’s softening up of the British public as a prelude to Operation Blitzkrieg to close down some universities and raise the fees to sensible and acceptable levels. This will be considered, in preliminary form, in a further memorandum.
2. I shall also take opportunity in my next memorandum to update partners on progress in relation to our discussions with law schools on the matter of a tailored LPC for our next intake of cannon fodder.
DIVERSITY
1.1 Clearly, we are not at all interested in diversity. Our view has always been to recruit the best; over recruiting to take the very best out of the gene pool and, thereby, inconvenience other law firms. Prudence dictates that our private practices remain private and, indeed, all trainees sign a marvellously incomprehensible non-disclosure document when they join which takes care of any ‘leakage’ to the press. We have had no resistance to this NDA; the trainees are easily bribed with an extra £2000 and the prospect of a lunch with the managing partner at some point during their period of training. We do have to have a public statement on diversity which will satisfy hacks from the law magazines and the more serious law bloggers.
1.2 Consistent with our practice of getting others to work for the greater good of our partnership, I would like to refer you to a piece I found on Lawyerwatch only this morning, while I was dissumulating and putting “psyops black tweets” out on twitter – a daily routine agreed at the last partner’s meeting…
The Bar Standards Board has “adopted” (their interesting turn of phrase) and published the report of a major review of pupillage training for the Bar The press release marking this occasion trumpets pupillage as the “best and fairest way of preparation for the profession and there are no plans to change its fundamental nature.” Much is made of its fairness on the basis that
- The numbers of men and women undertaking pupillage are nearly equal. Sometimes the proportion of women slightly exceeds that of men.
- 22.4% of pupils were drawn from a very wide range of ethnic and cultural backgrounds, exceeding the proportion of ethnic minorities found in other professions.
To be sure to ram the point home the press release further adds, “The Bar is proud of the diverse nature of the new entrants and the fact that access to pupillage appears based on ability and merit.”
The Lawyerwatch post goes on, interestingly, to make this point…
The report’s own research makes the point rather more clearly than the BSB appeared inclined to do(at p. 37):
- “The profile of pupils tends to be less diverse than the profile of university students, with a significant drop in representation of working-class students.
- “There are proportionately fewer female pupil barristers than there are female university graduates.”
A little ‘adjustment’ of the above, replacing ‘pupillage’ for ‘training’ and ‘trainees’ for ‘pupils’ should do the trick…and, after all, how long is a piece of string? and, as for the definition of ‘nearly’?!
We are, of course, ‘immensely proud of the diverse nature of new entrants and the fact that access to Muttley Dastardly LLP is based entirely on merit and ability’. Only schmuks hire losers. Fortunately, there are a few law schmuks out there. The fact that there are more women than men graduating makes it fairly clear that it is more difficult for women to get pupillages if the numbers are roughly equal, and it would appear that those from working class backgrounds continue to have a problem fitting in at the Bar. I suspect the same is true for many City Law firms. Fortunately, we could not care less here, so long as they have a work ethic and understand that they work for the greater good of the partners and not their self aggrandisement or career advancement. The latter comes (in time), of course, if they are made of the ‘right stuff’.
1.3 I think that addresses the diversity issue. I can have this printed up, distributed and get it out on the usual press guff run. Consistent with our ‘best practice’, I shall assume that if I do not hear from you, I am authorised, as a partner with you, to issue this on our collective behalf.
Dr Strangelove
Partner Muttley Dastardly LLP, Director of Education
Strength & Profits
Have you read Nick Cohen’s “What’s Left?”?
He points out that the emphasis on “diversity” has had the unintended side-effect of entrenching middle-class privilege: because women and members of ethnic minorities who have come into (or stayed in) the professions have come from a largely middle-class background.
So his argument is that, while diversity has (rightly) increased in some respects, in terms of social class and background it has substantially decreased.
Against that I wonder how much the increase in gender/ethnic diversity mirrors the overall expansion in the professions – i.e. are there actually fewer white men (let alone white working-class men), or are they just a smaller a proportion?
I’m sure Ed “Alf Garnett” Balls will sort it out, though…
I have read Nick Cohen’s “What’s Left’ and I completely agree with the above comment.
John H / Cheshire Solicitors
Yes… I have read it. I think he’s right.
Social engineering can be a dangerous tool. Frankenstein comes to mind.